Re: [Vo]:"There is no tomorrow" Video

The National Ignition Facility is only one of a number of projects used by the DOD to ensure that their H bombs explode when they want them to. Fusion research is just a PR thing. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > It would be nice to see them all funded to the >> $50-100 m

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

Both underwater and underground deployment of nuclear plants is ideal for certain types of nuclear designs that are totally passively controlled. This design is old and venerable. Being greatly concerned about nuclear safety, the last paper that Dr. Edward Teller (designed the H bomb) wrote before

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Without moral hazard, there is no way for a party to be motivated to > change his behavior, improve his design, or pay for any damage caused. > I think you have moral hazard exactly backwards. Moral hazard is a bad thing -- it's what happens whe

Re: [Vo]:"There is no tomorrow" Video

> > It would be nice to see them all funded to the > $50-100 million level for a few years to see if one or more of them > looks promising enough to carry on with > 1/ Field Reversed Configuration - eg Helion Energy, Tri Alpha > 2/ Electrostatic Confinement - eg Polywell/EMC2 > 3/ Magnetised Target

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy making waves

As long as LENR can't be patented there is no way for it to be really > profitable. Three weeks after someone comes out with a working device the > e-cat will be out of the bag and you'll have dealextreme.com selling > disposable LENR devices for $10.00 inc delivery. While I'm sure a few > million

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Jarold McWilliams wrote: Greenpeace is not a credible source. > That is true. Greenpeace gets most of the numbers in the report from official source in the Japanese government and TEPCO. These are not credible sources -- as you say -- but there are not many independent sources in Japan. Local go

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Jarold McWilliams wrote: If we decide to get rid of nuclear and coal in favor of wind and solar, a > millions of people will die of starvation. Our GDP would decrease by half. > This is nonsense. Five states in the U.S. alone have more potential wind energy than the energy from all the oil pump

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Jarold McWilliams wrote: > Where do you keep getting this $600 billion dollar number? > The Japanese mass media, NHK, and The Japan Center for Economic Research. See: http://www.jcer.or.jp/eng/research/pdf/pe(iwata20110425)e.pdf This shows 20 trillion yen for th

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:17:19 -0400: Hi, [snip] >I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far >above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building. I suggest building the entire reactor on the sea floor off shore. T

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

If we decide to get rid of nuclear and coal in favor of wind and solar, a millions of people will die of starvation. Our GDP would decrease by half. I'd rather take a "risk" that a nuclear reactor explodes or a coal mine collapses than the alternative. On Apr 2, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Jed Rothwe

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Greenpeace is not a credible source. On Apr 2, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 billion, which is > roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost. > > As Greenpeace pointed out, by coincidence this is roughly the cost

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Where do you keep getting this $600 billion dollar number? Most of the sources I've seen say it's around $50 billion. And Tepco is the 4th largest electric utility in the world, not the 1st. Adding Chernobyl to nuclear's safety record is unfair. Chernobyl just showed what can happen to a nu

[Vo]:Prof. Bardi’s Cold Fusion Breakthrough: the B-Cat

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2012/04/breakthrough-in-free-energy-b-cat.html Yesterday's news, but quite good. Be sure to check out the 1MW movie. (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)

Re: [Vo]:Advanced Theory of Energy/Being

Yeah, I've seen all the episodes, just recently over the past year or so, but especially when I was only 7 or 8 yrs old, some 50 yrs ago. > At that age I was mostly scared half outta my wits by alot of that stuff, but it also inspired me to persue the reality of how this civilization has been i

Re: [Vo]:Advanced Theory of Energy/Being

If a Spaceplane was equipped with 3-ea Light Energy Systems, that could produce a combined TPF equal to that of the EVW, the Spaceplane could accelerate down the runway at a fairly good rate. > It would obviously be advantageous if the TPF was at least double the EVW, because then you'd be enab

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Bruno Santos wrote: > The japanese government must be held responsible for the disaster as much > as TEPCO. > It is a little difficult to know what you can do to a government. Vote them out of office? The people who authorized this plant retired and died long ago. > Accidents happen, but thi

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

It is also important to notice that japanese government overlooked serious issues with the Fukushima power plant. The plant cooling design was not optimal and they knew it. The japanese government must be held responsible for the disaster as much as TEPCO. Accidents happen, but this was no accide

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Robert Lynn wrote: Maybe the best long term answer for nuclear is to put reactors in large > barges or on platforms 10's-100's of miles off-shore. That seems like a bad idea to me. A rogue wave or a storm at sea can capsize or break apart any ship, including the largest aircraft carrier or cont

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Axil Axil wrote: *Putting aside the long term perspective, .. .* > > You can’t dismiss the long term perspective. > No, you can't, but I just did. My sentence begins "putting aside the long term perspective" meaning "let's not talk about the future for a moment here; let's look only at the pr

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Maybe the best long term answer for nuclear is to put reactors in large barges or on platforms 10's-100's of miles off-shore. While they would be more vulnerable to the elements they would not threaten any land.

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

It will be horrendously expensive, but I would like to think that as smart as the Japanese are, they will come up with some creative solutions to mitigate the cost - and maybe ultimately it won't be as expensive as currently imagined. My parents told me that when they visited Nagasaki and Hiroshi

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Von:Jed Rothwell An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 22:02 Montag, 2.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster   >No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than nuclear power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining pollution.   >Putting aside the long te

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

*Putting aside the long term perspective, nuclear power is uniquely disastrous from an economic and business point of view. No other source of energy could conceivably cause so much damage in a single accident, or cost even a small fraction as much money. As I said, this accident bankrupted the wor

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

FYI: The EPR is equipped with what Areva refers to as a “core catcher.” If the fuel cladding and reactor vessel systems and associated piping become molten, these first two safety mechanisms the molten core will fall into a core catcher which holds the molten material and has the ability to cool i

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

I wrote: > The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 billion, which is > roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost. > As Greenpeace pointed out, by coincidence this is roughly the cost of the 2008 TARP bailout. Note however, that nearly all of the TARP money was returned the U

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than nuclear power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining pollution. Anyone who believes that global warming is real will certainly agree that nuclear power is safer even factoring the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents.

Re: [Vo]:Question about Defkalion products page

Von: David Roberson An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 20:17 Montag, 2.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Question about Defkalion products page >The most important factor is the Carnot efficiency of the potential heat >engine that can be driven by the heat outp

Re: [Vo]:Advanced Theory of Energy/Being

Von: "lorenhe...@aol.com" An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 19:25 Montag, 2.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Advanced Theory of Energy/Being >The best way I can think of to get a prototype of the one system that will enable star travel a few hundred years or s

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

Alain Sepeda wrote: One of the characteristic of moder reactors like EPR (Areva) is that they can self cool without external energy. Sure. There are several designs that use passive cooling. The pebble bed reactor is another example. But none have been commercialized yet. The designs are rad

Re: [Vo]:Question about Defkalion products page

I have been hit over the head on more than one occasion when thinking about COP and have come to some interesting observations. The most important factor is the Carnot efficiency of the potential heat engine that can be driven by the heat output of the LENR device. The Carnot efficiency is de

Re: [Vo]:Advanced Theory of Energy/Being

The best way I can think of to get a prototype of the one system that will enable star travel a few hundred years or so, would be to draw-up a proposal and/or contract with NASA. > About 10yrs ago, NASA had developed a motor or rotor that could maintain a rate of 60,000 Rpm's (1,000 Rps's), and

Re: [Vo]:Stabilizing the E-Cat

You have presented a pretty good discussion of the methods of control and it will be useful for all of us to give the techniques serious consideration. My concern is not in controlling that which is currently available, but to derive the best possible system to control. There are numerous var

Re: [Vo]:"There is no tomorrow" Video

Assuming no commercial LENR: Frakking does buy us a lot of time, probably well over 100 years. Trucks, Planes, Trains and Ships could all switch to natural gas for fuel, and even cars will swap over if oil gets too expensive. We can also make liquid fuels out of natural gas (GTL), at current gas

Re: [Vo]:Question about Defkalion products page

thanks, that is the data I needed to answer. 2012/4/2 Andre Blum > This page from june 2011 already quotes the 6-30 COP and Xanthi factory. > > http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/defkalion-green-technologies-new.html > > Andre > > > On 03/30/2012 06:53 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > > Hi, > someone c

Re: [Vo]:Question about Defkalion products page

This page from june 2011 already quotes the 6-30 COP and Xanthi factory. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/defkalion-green-technologies-new.html Andre On 03/30/2012 06:53 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Hi, someone cite me todays "products" page of defkalion,

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy making waves

like in computer science in the old time, you can make much cash on an innovative domain without patent. there is many things to innovate in LENR. if there is no protection, you will be copied in in a few semesters, but you can make cash. then you innovate for next semester. maybe is it the idea

RE: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

From: Bruno Santos As if it is not enough, coal ash is radioactive. As a matter of a fact, it pollutes the environment with much more radiation than nuclear plants waste does. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactiv

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

I meant "there is no greater tragedy in human history, in pursuit of energy, as coal". Em 2 de abril de 2012 11:26, Bruno Santos escreveu: > I am not saying that Fukushima was not a big and horrible disaster, but > things must be seen in perspective. > > There is no greater tragedy in human hist

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

I am not saying that Fukushima was not a big and horrible disaster, but things must be seen in perspective. There is no greater tragedy in human history as coal. Fukushima is a footnote in history of disasters compared to coal. And yet, people go making much more fuss about nuclear powerplants th

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy making waves

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:05 AM, James Bowery wrote: > > If you can figure out why money is going down this rat-hole: > > ...*Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry* can compel the proper > meshing of the huge industrial and military machi

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy making waves

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Robert McKay wrote: > As long as LENR can't be patented there is no way for it to be really > profitable. > Not true. Not all countries ban LENR patents. Even one country would be more than enough to make the return on investment mind-blowing.

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy making waves

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:05 AM, James Bowery wrote: > If you can figure out why money is going down this rat-hole: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy making waves

On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:05:48 -0500, James Bowery wrote: So what do you guys think? Why has Brillouin such difficulties to collect 6 million? Maybe the vortex-crowd should put their money where their mouth is, and invest. (suppressing my Homerian laughter.) As long as LENR can't be patented the

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy making waves

If you can figure out why money is going down this rat-hole: http://costofwar.com/en/ at a rate of $14 million per hour, perhaps can start to understand the true dimensions of the mystery. On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: > > this interview with Robert George and Robert

[Vo]:Look ma no hands! @NASCAR

Google car for NASCAR http://www.nascar.com/video/none/none/120331/cup-mar-google/ mic

Re: [Vo]:Stabilizing the E-Cat

just to note that Rossi just answered with the kind of control he use... - have you built a mathematical model of your reactor above 260°C? > *- which control method are you using for your reactor? (PI/PID/MPC) * > - what is the length of the control horizon of an industrial ecat? > (seconds/mins/

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

One of the characteristic of moder reactors like EPR (Areva) is that they can self cool without external energy. one thing missing were sand filters, that are installed in french powerplant by the demand of a stubborn engineer that lobby for that desperate mitigation system. people were moaning abo

Re: [Vo]:Stabilizing the E-Cat

no need of a total theory to control a complex system. and even with a total theory about a mechanisme, the real system is often very different, much complex and simple that the predicted system. the engineer method is to learn the characteristic of the system, upfront (eg: pulse response) and eve