date:20121123

Arnaud,

Looks like 240V max and 4A max was used by Godes in phase 1.  The RMS
current is 12 mA.

More recently, looks like his circuit has capacity up to 35A (doesn't
specify the voltage) and a minimum pulse width of 250 ns.

I'd be happy just replicating the phase I for now.

Looks like those transistors could get in the range of ~313 ns pulse width
from looking at the data sheet @ 300V and 9.5A.

If I understand you correctly, are you saying you could use a second PWM
signal to turn all the gates off to get the dead time?

Thanks,
Jack

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote:

 e of the power part of the circuit?

 ** **

 Arnaud
   --

 *From:* Jack Cole [mailto:jcol...@gmail.com]

 

 Arnaud (or anyone who can answer),

 ** **

 So if I understand correctly, you could use a PWM pulse with an H bridge
 to get AC from a PWM signal?  I think I looked into this before, and the
 problem would be that you wouldn't have the dead space in the current.
  Let's say you have a 100 ns + current and when this is switched off, the H
 bridge allows the - current for the remainder of the duty cycle.  This gets
 you closer, but is still not what is needed.  If I understand correctly,
 you need a bipolar pulse (then no current in between the pulses).

 ** **

[Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

2012-11-23 Thread pagnucco


Professor: Really disturbed by recent solar flares  We could have lots
of Fukushima-type events if one causes power blackout (VIDEO)

http://enenews.com/professor-really-disturbed-solar-flares-week-could-lots-fukushima-type-events-around-one-power-blackout-all-hell-could-break-lose-video


Preventing Armageddon Would Cost Only $100 Million
 But Congress Is Too Thick to Approve the Fix

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/preventing-armageddon-would-cost-only-100-million-but-congress-is-too-thick-to-approve-the-fix.html

[Vo]:IR UFOs

I'm sure that there is an explanation for this; but, I'm at a loss to
explain it:

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/406174/20121119/ufo-sighting-australia-melbourne-video.htm#.UK-ugIfAfvR

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

2012-11-23 Thread Vorl Bek

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:10:07 -0500 (EST)
pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 
 
 Preventing Armageddon Would Cost Only $100 Million
  But Congress Is Too Thick to Approve the Fix
 
 http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/preventing-armageddon-would-cost-only-100-million-but-congress-is-too-thick-to-approve-the-fix.html
 
 

From the article:
Unfortunately, the world’s nuclear power plants, as they are
currently designed, are critically dependent upon maintaining
connection to a functioning electrical grid, for all but
relatively short periods of electrical blackouts, in order to keep
their reactor cores continuously cooled so as to avoid
catastrophic reactor core meltdowns


I thought that reactors were designed so that inserting rods of
some material would kill the reaction. I imagine they would have
battery power for long enough to insert the rods; heck, maybe
they even have a manual way to crank the motor to do it.

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

Guys,

I think we are at a HUGE risk with Fission reactors in 2013 with CMEs and
the two large Comets inbound (a third comet just broke up) which will fly
close to the sun and could trigger large ejections and flares.  A huge
solar flare could fry the grid, backup batteries and knock out generators
on Earth.  I say take fission reactrors offline for a year and fire up the
gas turbines while we see what happens with the sun.  I think the comets
will cool things down anyway.

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com


On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:

 On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:10:07 -0500 (EST)
 pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 
 
  Preventing Armageddon Would Cost Only $100 Million
  … But Congress Is Too Thick to Approve the Fix
 
 
 http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/preventing-armageddon-would-cost-only-100-million-but-congress-is-too-thick-to-approve-the-fix.html
 
 

 From the article:
 Unfortunately, the world’s nuclear power plants, as they are
 currently designed, are critically dependent upon maintaining
 connection to a functioning electrical grid, for all but
 relatively short periods of electrical blackouts, in order to keep
 their reactor cores continuously cooled so as to avoid
 catastrophic reactor core meltdowns


 I thought that reactors were designed so that inserting rods of
 some material would kill the reaction. I imagine they would have
 battery power for long enough to insert the rods; heck, maybe
 they even have a manual way to crank the motor to do it.

Re: [Vo]:IR UFOs

2012-11-23 Thread John A Allen

I believe the fast moving ones are flying insects that are close to the camera. 
No idea on the slow ones.

Briefly, from my iPhone

On Nov 23, 2012, at 9:23, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm sure that there is an explanation for this; but, I'm at a loss to
 explain it:
 
 http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/406174/20121119/ufo-sighting-australia-melbourne-video.htm#.UK-ugIfAfvR

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:



 I thought that reactors were designed so that inserting rods of
 some material would kill the reaction. I imagine they would have
 battery power for long enough to insert the rods; heck, maybe
 they even have a manual way to crank the motor to do it.


They can all be gravity actuated as far as I know. The rods are above, and
they fall straight down into the reactor core. That is called a reactor
SCRAM. It does stop the reaction. Every reactor undergoes an emergency
SCRAM from time to time, usually in response to a stuck valve or a clogged
pipe. The Three Mile Island reactor accident began with a SCRAM from
clogged pipe. Fukushima was scrammed in the first seconds of the
earthquake. However, that is not enough to prevent a catastrophe. At
Fukushima the tsunami destroyed their generator capacity, and cut their
connection to the network, which led to the destruction of the reactors and
the hydrogen explosions.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:IR UFOs

Terry,

My vote is energetic particles (orbital dark matter), sent towards the
Earth from either the recent CME's, solar flares or comets.  A high
concentration of infestation of this stuff will condense gasses in the
atmosphere leading to global atmospheric condensing, cooling, large storms,
earthquakes and volcanoes.  It is glowing while it is still in space
orbiting towards us...

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com


On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm sure that there is an explanation for this; but, I'm at a loss to
 explain it:


 http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/406174/20121119/ufo-sighting-australia-melbourne-video.htm#.UK-ugIfAfvR

RE: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

2012-11-23 Thread Mark Goldes

This is one of two Ticking Time Bombs which pose near-term threats to life in 
at least the Northern hemisphere. 

The other is the fuel pools at Fukushima. A strong earthquake, which is 
virtually certain within three years, can release radioactivity exceeding all 
700 nuclear bombs exploded in the atmosphere since WWII.

See the Aesop Institute website for much more information and additional 
suggestions for prevention of the worst.

Incidently, a solar flare has launched a pair of CMEs that will hit the 
geomagnetic field this weekend. This is an M-class event and will probably only 
affect the polar region on Sunday. However, NOAA says we have a 70% probability 
of more M-class CMEs and a 30% chance of an X-class CME from this same sunspot 
now facing the earth.

Mark

Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: ChemE Stewart [cheme...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 9:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

Guys,

I think we are at a HUGE risk with Fission reactors in 2013 with CMEs and the 
two large Comets inbound (a third comet just broke up) which will fly close to 
the sun and could trigger large ejections and flares.  A huge solar flare could 
fry the grid, backup batteries and knock out generators on Earth.  I say take 
fission reactrors offline for a year and fire up the gas turbines while we see 
what happens with the sun.  I think the comets will cool things down anyway.

Stewart
darkmattersalot.comhttp://darkmattersalot.com


On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Vorl Bek 
vorl@antichef.commailto:vorl@antichef.com wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:10:07 -0500 (EST)
pagnu...@htdconnect.commailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:



 Preventing Armageddon Would Cost Only $100 Million
 … But Congress Is Too Thick to Approve the Fix

 http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/preventing-armageddon-would-cost-only-100-million-but-congress-is-too-thick-to-approve-the-fix.html



From the article:
Unfortunately, the world’s nuclear power plants, as they are
currently designed, are critically dependent upon maintaining
connection to a functioning electrical grid, for all but
relatively short periods of electrical blackouts, in order to keep
their reactor cores continuously cooled so as to avoid
catastrophic reactor core meltdowns


I thought that reactors were designed so that inserting rods of
some material would kill the reaction. I imagine they would have
battery power for long enough to insert the rods; heck, maybe
they even have a manual way to crank the motor to do it.

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

Chernobyl, blamed on operators (which may be true) also had a seismic
anomaly beforehand.  They were unable to lower the rods to safety. Think
of the effect of gradual beta decay directly over an operating reactor,
warping the control rods/covers preventing proper SCRAM.
http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr139/pdf/karpan.pdf





On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:



 I thought that reactors were designed so that inserting rods of
 some material would kill the reaction. I imagine they would have
 battery power for long enough to insert the rods; heck, maybe
 they even have a manual way to crank the motor to do it.


 They can all be gravity actuated as far as I know. The rods are above, and
 they fall straight down into the reactor core. That is called a reactor
 SCRAM. It does stop the reaction. Every reactor undergoes an emergency
 SCRAM from time to time, usually in response to a stuck valve or a clogged
 pipe. The Three Mile Island reactor accident began with a SCRAM from
 clogged pipe. Fukushima was scrammed in the first seconds of the
 earthquake. However, that is not enough to prevent a catastrophe. At
 Fukushima the tsunami destroyed their generator capacity, and cut their
 connection to the network, which led to the destruction of the reactors and
 the hydrogen explosions.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Supersonic shockwave acceleration processes

Jim,

Just trying to get my grade up at the unaccredited Bowery U, I have placed
an explanation on my blog on how a massive collapsed matter particle from a
CME can achieve and maintain orbit through and around the Earth.  If you
have 5 minutes it is on my blog

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com





On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:30 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 The other thing to note is the particle is in a decaying Earth orbit, not
 your silly ass Wolfram 1st grade example.


 On Monday, November 19, 2012, James Bowery wrote:

 I'm sorry, that answer is only a little better than Its in the library
 somewhere.

 You get an F.

 On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:53 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Read my blog


 On Monday, November 19, 2012, James Bowery wrote:

 Pop quiz!

 Kepler is famous for having solved calculus derivation of minima and
 maxima of a curve when presented with the challenge of finding the optimum
 shape for a barrel of dill pickles to go with the tasty char broiled
 hamburgers that history now recognizes as the inspiration for flavour in
 physics.

 Kepler is also famous for having found the closed form solution to the
 two body orbital problem where the mass and velocities of two co-orbiting
 bodies is known.

 Given the mass of the earth and the purported orbital speed of the
 gremlin of thousands of kilometers per second, what is the minimum mass of
 a gremlin that can result in a maximal orbital velocity of just 1000
 kilometers per second?

 On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:36 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Notice Woflram does not show you the particle mass.  Orbits depend on
 more than just velocity.  Also notice that the research does not place a
 lower limit on mass:

 If the WIMP is heavy even with optimistic assumptions and large exposures
 it will only be possible to place a lower limit on its mass

 Also notice that two body Kepler orbits do not necessarily orbit around
 the center of mass of either object they orbit a barycenter, which may
 place their orbit above and below the surface of matter that they weakly
 interact with.

 Also notice that if a good portion of your orbit is through a mass that
 you interact gravitationally with it will attempt to lock you in as opposed
 to an orbiting satellite in space.  Just like the moving ocean mass will
 attempt to steer you gravitationally.

 Also notice that your hamburger just disappeared thru beta decay while
 you were not watching and listening to me.

 Stewart
 darkmattersalot.com








 On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:21 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 My, Goodness!

 You'd better get over there to Wolfram's model of WIMP Orbiting Inside
 Earth

 http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/WIMPOrbitingInsideEarth/

 And tell them to fix their units labeling.  If one were a hamburger
 helper physicist, one might be led to believe that the speed unit was m/s
 rather than km/s!


 On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:09 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Stick to cooking hamburgers.  You make much more sense in your field of
 knowledge

 local WIMP speed distribution is known (Maxwellian with vc=220 km/s)
 http://conferences.fnal.gov/dmwksp/Talks/AGreen.pdf

 fits great with my orbital model speed and mass of a massive collapsed
 particle

 I have supplied plenty of predictions as to location and detection for
 you/others to prove me wrong. I have also supplied plenty of observations
 that fit.  I suggest you camp out near an actively growing sinkhole and
 cook your hamburgers on your beta decay grill.








 On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

 iYes, of course!  The weak interaction, which essentially disappears at a
 distance of around 10^-17m, provides many orders of magnitude greater force
 than does gravitation at scales of 10^3m.  This is why a gremlin travelling
 at speeds orders of magnitude above escape

Re: [Vo]:IR UFOs

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:44 PM, John A Allen johnaal...@gmail.com wrote:
 I believe the fast moving ones are flying insects that are close to the 
 camera. No idea on the slow ones.

Yeah, I agree on the bugs.  The fact that the slow ones were not
visible to the eye is odd.

Re: [Vo]:IR UFOs

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:51 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
 Terry,

 My vote is energetic particles (orbital dark matter), sent towards the
 Earth from either the recent CME's, solar flares or comets.

facepalm

I could have guessed.

Re: [Vo]:IR UFOs

You have an acute awareness of the obvious


On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:51 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Terry,
 
  My vote is energetic particles (orbital dark matter), sent towards the
  Earth from either the recent CME's, solar flares or comets.

 facepalm

 I could have guessed.

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

2012-11-23 Thread pagnucco

Let's not forget, too, reactor failure could just be the coup de grace.
Loss of the grid would probably lead to immediate loss of civil control.

BTW, here is a recent assessment on nuclear plant safety -

The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2011 - LIVING ON BORROWED TIME
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nrc-nuclear-safety-2011-full-report.pdf

Jed Rothwell wrote:
 Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:



 I thought that reactors were designed so that inserting rods of
 some material would kill the reaction. I imagine they would have
 battery power for long enough to insert the rods; heck, maybe
 they even have a manual way to crank the motor to do it.


 They can all be gravity actuated as far as I know. The rods are above, and
 they fall straight down into the reactor core. That is called a reactor
 SCRAM. It does stop the reaction. Every reactor undergoes an emergency
 SCRAM from time to time, usually in response to a stuck valve or a clogged
 pipe. The Three Mile Island reactor accident began with a SCRAM from
 clogged pipe. Fukushima was scrammed in the first seconds of the
 earthquake. However, that is not enough to prevent a catastrophe. At
 Fukushima the tsunami destroyed their generator capacity, and cut their
 connection to the network, which led to the destruction of the reactors
 and
 the hydrogen explosions.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

Yup

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 1:23 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 sessment on nuclear plant safety -

 The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2011 - LIVING ON BORROWED TIME

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

2012-11-23 Thread James Bowery

BTW:  To put this bug in perspective, I've been using the calchemy
Unicalc very frequently ever since 1996 without any errors cropping up
until this, and this one appears to be related not to units but to a
peculiar case in dimensional analysis.

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:05 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 My units calculator inserted an erroneous 2pi constant into the conversion.

 That's the first time its betrayed me.   I'll report it to the authors.
 Here's a link to the web version:

 http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/

 So, yes, 13mm looks like the figure.  Are there electrodes with any
 dimensions in the range of  1.3cm?


 On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote:

  James,

 ** **

 I’ve a problem with my HP calculator emulator which gives me 13.093 mm***
 *

 ** **

 d= v * t = v / f ( with v=1/f)

 ** **

 5630/430E3 = 13.093E-3 m = 13.093 mm

 ** **

 Arnaud
   --

 *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* jeudi 22 novembre 2012 22:21
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

 ** **

 It's hard to know where to begin here but let me just say this that given the
 speed of sound in 
 nickelhttp://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/appendices-velocities/
 :


 5630m/s

 and 430kHz:

 5630m/s;430kHz?mm

 ([5630 * meter] / second) * (430 * [kilo*hertz])^-1 ? milli*meter
 = 2.0838194 mm

 In other words, a 2mm electrode should exhibit resonance at ~430kHz.

 On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 

 On the contrary James, at least two of us did look closely at this
 possibility [electrode acoustics]. 

  

 My associate went to trouble to find and download a mpeg sound file of a
 bicycle bell of the same general size as Davey’s, and plugged it into a
 program for this kind of analysis – in fact it is dedicated bell analysis
 software that has proved very accurate for electrodes in the past. The
 natural acoustic of this hemisphere are nowhere close.

  

 The main freq is 4,445.5 Hz, with some sub harmonics, the lowest being
 around 521/545 Hz, but those are so faint as to be discarded. Higher
 harmonics are barely above noise.

  

 Thus, since the acoustics of the electrodes were off by two orders of
 magnitude over the signature sound, we did not think that electrode
 acoustics were in any way relevant as an alternative explanation, or
 otherwise worth pursuing.

  

 Jones

  

  

 *From:* James Bowery 

  

 As I previously 
 advisedhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73144.html
 :

  

 Look at the acoustics of the electrodes.

  

 Since this advice seemed to make no impact on the discourse here at
 vortex-l, let me expand:

  

 Acoustic resonance in the metallic electrodes does have a reasonable
 chance of bearing directly on the creation of the nuclear active
 environment hypothesized to exist.  I don't think I need to expland on
 list the possibilities here.

  

 Moreover, if one looks at the speed of sound in metals, the 430kHz LENR
 signature regime corresponds to the thickness of the cathodes frequently
 reported as exhibiting the phenomena.

  

 Need I say more?

  

 ** **

[Vo]:WaPost: Coal fired plants closing

See:

The demise of coal-fired power plants

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-demise-of-coal-fired-power-plants/2012/11/21/e7ca1e6e-fdda-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

QUOTE:

As of July, companies had announced plans to close down 30 gigawatts of
coal-fired plants, or about 10 percent of the nation’s total coal plant
capacity, by 2016, according toa study by the Brattle Group, a consulting
firm. These aren’t models of efficiency; the EIA says that the average
coal-fired generator to be retired this year is 56 years old.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

2012-11-23 Thread David Roberson

Vrol, the insertion of the rods does in fact kill the chain reaction as you 
suspect.  The problem is that energy continues to be released by the highly 
radioactive elements that reside within the active reactor.  This heat is 
adequate to cause a meltdown if not removed.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas


Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:



 
I thought that reactors were designed so that inserting rods of
some material would kill the reaction. I imagine they would have
battery power for long enough to insert the rods; heck, maybe
they even have a manual way to crank the motor to do it.



They can all be gravity actuated as far as I know. The rods are above, and they 
fall straight down into the reactor core. That is called a reactor SCRAM. It 
does stop the reaction. Every reactor undergoes an emergency SCRAM from time to 
time, usually in response to a stuck valve or a clogged pipe. The Three Mile 
Island reactor accident began with a SCRAM from clogged pipe. Fukushima was 
scrammed in the first seconds of the earthquake. However, that is not enough to 
prevent a catastrophe. At Fukushima the tsunami destroyed their generator 
capacity, and cut their connection to the network, which led to the destruction 
of the reactors and the hydrogen explosions.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

2012-11-23 Thread David Roberson

Mark, if the stored radioactive material escapes it may not travel too far 
unless it is transported into the upper atmosphere.  Is there reason to believe 
that anyone except for the local region will receive a massive dose?  Not that 
that would be so great!


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Mark Goldes mgol...@chavaenergy.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 12:54 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas


This is one of two Ticking Time Bombs which pose near-term threats to life in 
at 
least the Northern hemisphere. 

The other is the fuel pools at Fukushima. A strong earthquake, which is 
virtually certain within three years, can release radioactivity exceeding all 
700 nuclear bombs exploded in the atmosphere since WWII.

See the Aesop Institute website for much more information and additional 
suggestions for prevention of the worst.

Incidently, a solar flare has launched a pair of CMEs that will hit the 
geomagnetic field this weekend. This is an M-class event and will probably only 
affect the polar region on Sunday. However, NOAA says we have a 70% probability 
of more M-class CMEs and a 30% chance of an X-class CME from this same sunspot 
now facing the earth.

Mark

Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: ChemE Stewart [cheme...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 9:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

Guys,

I think we are at a HUGE risk with Fission reactors in 2013 with CMEs and the 
two large Comets inbound (a third comet just broke up) which will fly close to 
the sun and could trigger large ejections and flares.  A huge solar flare could 
fry the grid, backup batteries and knock out generators on Earth.  I say take 
fission reactrors offline for a year and fire up the gas turbines while we see 
what happens with the sun.  I think the comets will cool things down anyway.

Stewart
darkmattersalot.comhttp://darkmattersalot.com


On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Vorl Bek 
vorl@antichef.commailto:vorl@antichef.com 
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:10:07 -0500 (EST)
pagnu...@htdconnect.commailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:



 Preventing Armageddon Would Cost Only $100 Million
 … But Congress Is Too Thick to Approve the Fix

 http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/preventing-armageddon-would-cost-only-100-million-but-congress-is-too-thick-to-approve-the-fix.html



From the article:
Unfortunately, the world’s nuclear power plants, as they are
currently designed, are critically dependent upon maintaining
connection to a functioning electrical grid, for all but
relatively short periods of electrical blackouts, in order to keep
their reactor cores continuously cooled so as to avoid
catastrophic reactor core meltdowns


I thought that reactors were designed so that inserting rods of
some material would kill the reaction. I imagine they would have
battery power for long enough to insert the rods; heck, maybe
they even have a manual way to crank the motor to do it.

RE: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

2012-11-23 Thread Mark Goldes

Dave, 

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. 

Fukushima fallout is carried by the jet stream and has been deposited all 
across the USA. 

The Northern lights are more unusual in color, magnitude, and in scope because 
of the high atomic weight Fukushima Fallout in the atmosphere. Post Fukushima 
such lights are no longer a treat. In fact they are the harbingers of the 
creation of a whole new witches’ brew of radioactive Fukushima related fallout. 
 It is a harbinger that grows more concerning as these Solar Storms are 
simultaneously increasing in magnitude…  The recent CME interacted with high 
atomic weight fallout (both radioactive and NON-radioactive) in the upper 
atmosphere and produced new radioactive fallout via nuclear spallation 
processes. Radioactive iodine is being reported in the USA and Europe. Evidence 
of Plutonium 239 spallation is expected.  

Live in San Francisco? You Inhaled 75 MILLION Plutonium Atoms In Just 4 days! 
In order to make the EPA's Plutonium 239 detection from March 15 - March 18, 
2011 understandable in terms people could visualize, we calculated the 
distributed average number of Pu-239 atoms inhaled by EVERY single person in 
the Bay area during that time period. We also discuss the other radioactive 
elements detected, and how the EPA's detection of Iodine-133 is especially 
troubling.
 
These are from:  Pissinontheroses.blogspot.com   

Mark



Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: David Roberson [dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 11:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

Mark, if the stored radioactive material escapes it may not travel too far 
unless it is transported into the upper atmosphere.  Is there reason to believe 
that anyone except for the local region will receive a massive dose?  Not that 
that would be so great!

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Mark Goldes mgol...@chavaenergy.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 12:54 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas


This is one of two Ticking Time Bombs which pose near-term threats to life in at
least the Northern hemisphere.

The other is the fuel pools at Fukushima. A strong earthquake, which is
virtually certain within three years, can release radioactivity exceeding all
700 nuclear bombs exploded in the atmosphere since WWII.

See the Aesop Institute website for much more information and additional
suggestions for prevention of the worst.

Incidently, a solar flare has launched a pair of CMEs that will hit the
geomagnetic field this weekend. This is an M-class event and will probably only
affect the polar region on Sunday. However, NOAA says we have a 70% probability
of more M-class CMEs and a 30% chance of an X-class CME from this same sunspot
now facing the earth.

Mark

Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.comhttp://www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.orghttp://www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: ChemE Stewart [cheme...@gmail.commailto:cheme...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 9:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

Guys,

I think we are at a HUGE risk with Fission reactors in 2013 with CMEs and the
two large Comets inbound (a third comet just broke up) which will fly close to
the sun and could trigger large ejections and flares.  A huge solar flare could
fry the grid, backup batteries and knock out generators on Earth.  I say take
fission reactrors offline for a year and fire up the gas turbines while we see
what happens with the sun.  I think the comets will cool things down anyway.

Stewart
darkmattersalot.comhttp://darkmattersalot.com


On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Vorl Bek 
vorl@antichef.commailto:vorl@antichef.commailto:vorl@antichef.commailto:vorl@antichef.com?
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:10:07 -0500 (EST)
pagnu...@htdconnect.commailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.commailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.commailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com?
 wrote:



 Preventing Armageddon Would Cost Only $100 Million
 … But Congress Is Too Thick to Approve the Fix

 http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/preventing-armageddon-would-cost-only-100-million-but-congress-is-too-thick-to-approve-the-fix.html



From the article:
Unfortunately, the world’s nuclear power plants, as they are
currently designed, are critically dependent upon maintaining
connection to a functioning electrical grid, for all but
relatively short periods of electrical blackouts, in order to keep
their reactor cores continuously cooled so as to avoid
catastrophic reactor core meltdowns


I thought that reactors were designed so that

[Vo]:FYI: DOE funding being moved from Hi-E physics to new projects

2012-11-23 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint



Science

23 November 2012: 

Vol. 338  no. 6110  p. 1017 

News  Analysis

High-Energy Physics

DOE Shifts Money From Research Grants to New Projects

Adrian Cho 

 

The U.S. Department of Energy has decided to cut funding for high-energy
physics research to free up money for new projects. The shift will reduce
the number of researchers it supports on the teams working with the world's
largest atom smasher-the Large Hadron Collider at the European particle
physics laboratory, CERN.



 

Let's hope that a significant chunk of that is going into LENR work!!!

 

-Mark Iverson

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

No worries. Stuff happens. I probably shouldn't have sent the follow-up,
made it seem like a bigger deal than it should be.
Jeff



On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:31 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 BTW:  To put this bug in perspective, I've been using the calchemy
 Unicalc very frequently ever since 1996 without any errors cropping up
 until this, and this one appears to be related not to units but to a
 peculiar case in dimensional analysis.


 On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:05 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 My units calculator inserted an erroneous 2pi constant into the
 conversion.

 That's the first time its betrayed me.   I'll report it to the authors.
 Here's a link to the web version:

 http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/

 So, yes, 13mm looks like the figure.  Are there electrodes with any
 dimensions in the range of  1.3cm?


 On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Arnaud Kodeck 
 arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote:

  James,

 ** **

 I’ve a problem with my HP calculator emulator which gives me 13.093 mm**
 **

 ** **

 d= v * t = v / f ( with v=1/f)

 ** **

 5630/430E3 = 13.093E-3 m = 13.093 mm

 ** **

 Arnaud
   --

 *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* jeudi 22 novembre 2012 22:21
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

 ** **

 It's hard to know where to begin here but let me just say this that
 given the speed of sound in 
 nickelhttp://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/appendices-velocities/
 :


 5630m/s

 and 430kHz:

 5630m/s;430kHz?mm

 ([5630 * meter] / second) * (430 * [kilo*hertz])^-1 ? milli*meter
 = 2.0838194 mm

 In other words, a 2mm electrode should exhibit resonance at ~430kHz.

 On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
 wrote:

 On the contrary James, at least two of us did look closely at this
 possibility [electrode acoustics]. 

  

 My associate went to trouble to find and download a mpeg sound file of a
 bicycle bell of the same general size as Davey’s, and plugged it into a
 program for this kind of analysis – in fact it is dedicated bell analysis
 software that has proved very accurate for electrodes in the past. The
 natural acoustic of this hemisphere are nowhere close.

  

 The main freq is 4,445.5 Hz, with some sub harmonics, the lowest being
 around 521/545 Hz, but those are so faint as to be discarded. Higher
 harmonics are barely above noise.

  

 Thus, since the acoustics of the electrodes were off by two orders of
 magnitude over the signature sound, we did not think that electrode
 acoustics were in any way relevant as an alternative explanation, or
 otherwise worth pursuing.

  

 Jones

  

  

 *From:* James Bowery 

  

 As I previously 
 advisedhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73144.html
 :

  

 Look at the acoustics of the electrodes.

  

 Since this advice seemed to make no impact on the discourse here at
 vortex-l, let me expand:

  

 Acoustic resonance in the metallic electrodes does have a reasonable
 chance of bearing directly on the creation of the nuclear active
 environment hypothesized to exist.  I don't think I need to expland on
 list the possibilities here.

  

 Moreover, if one looks at the speed of sound in metals, the 430kHz LENR
 signature regime corresponds to the thickness of the cathodes frequently
 reported as exhibiting the phenomena.

  

 Need I say more?

  

 ** **

Re: [Vo]:IR UFOs

2012-11-23 Thread Alan Fletcher

 From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
 Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 9:23:43 AM
 I'm sure that there is an explanation for this; but, I'm at a loss to
 explain it:
 
 http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/406174/20121119/ufo-sighting-australia-melbourne-video.htm#.UK-ugIfAfvR

I'd be a bit more impressed if he gave the exact location (Melbourne?), 
direction, and timestamps. Is it video or time-lapse?

Re: [Vo]:The excimer laser

2012-11-23 Thread Eric Walker

The fact that there is photon emission in the soft x-ray range for the
heavier elements is interesting.  I am reminded of Ron Maimon's suggestion,
assuming I have understood it: if you kick out an inner shell electron in
one of the heavier elements (Ar, Kr and Xe, below, but also Pd and perhaps
Ni), the resulting vacancy will have potential energy in the keV -- he
mentioned 20 keV for palladium.  The two ways that are commonly understood
to dissipate this energy are characteristic photons, where a higher shell
electron falls into the vacancy and emits a photon in the process, and
Augur electrons.  The crux of Ron Maimon's proposal is that there is a
third way to deal with the resulting potential energy -- it could end up
being transferred to a deuteron in the area in the form of kinetic energy
(if I have understood him).  So instead of a characteristic photon or an
Augur electron you would have a deuteron with ~20 keV energy.  According to
Wikipedia, the optimum temperature for D-D fusion is 15 keV [1], so all
else being equal, the energies appear to be within the realm of possibility.

Maimon proposes that transmutations are a combination of (1) the shattering
of the spectator nucleus (e.g., the palladium atom) by the energy of the
reaction and (2) the absorption of daughters of the fusion reaction into
the spectator nucleus.  Alphas and other fragments that are formed and not
absorbed in this way race through the local system, ionizing nuclei as they
go and carrying the reaction forward.

Note that although Ron Maimon has been talking about the Pd/D solid-phase
system, there is nothing obvious that would restrict this description to
that system.  Perhaps you could see something similar going on in a gas
phase system with species entirely different from palladium (although I
suspect the presence of deuterium would be necessary).  I think you would
need heavy gas atoms, though -- perhaps Ar, Kr and Xe, for example.

Eric

[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Criteria_and_candidates_for_terrestrial_reactions



On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Chlorine/noble gas combo  produces the most powerful laser effect in the
 150 and 173 nm wave length range, were the shorter the wavelength is, the
 closer the laser is to the soft x-ray range.

 Floride/noble gas produces a less powerful laser emination

 The wavelength of an excimer laser depends on the molecules used, and is
 usually in the ultraviolet:

 Excimer /Wavelength /Relative Power mW

 Ar2* /126 nm
 Kr2* /146 nm
 Xe2* /172  175 nm
 ArF /193 nm /60
 KrF /248 nm /100
 XeBr /282 nm
 XeCl /308 nm /50
 XeF /351 nm /45
 KrCl /222 nm / 25

 See

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excimer_laser


 * Notice that Ar, Kr, and Xe can produce powerful soft x-ray laser
 radiation on their own.


 Cheers:   Axil

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:53:25 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
Vrol, the insertion of the rods does in fact kill the chain reaction as you 
suspect.  The problem is that energy continues to be released by the highly 
radioactive elements that reside within the active reactor.  This heat is 
adequate to cause a meltdown if not removed.


Dave

...all of this makes me wonder if it might be safer NOT to scram the reactor.
That way it can continue to provide power itself to power it's own auxiliary
equipment.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:The excimer laser

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 23 Nov 2012 13:56:15 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
The crux of Ron Maimon's proposal is that there is a
third way to deal with the resulting potential energy -- it could end up
being transferred to a deuteron in the area in the form of kinetic energy
(if I have understood him).  So instead of a characteristic photon or an
Augur electron you would have a deuteron with ~20 keV energy. 
[snip]
The problem with this approach is lack of ROI. To start with only a fraction of
the incident x-rays are going to kick an electron out of a lower orbital. When
it does happen, only a fraction of the time would this produce an energetic D
nucleus. Then only a fraction of those energetic D nuclei would actually undergo
fusion.

All in all, I fear that all those fractions multiplied together are going to
result in a COP  1.

Besides it's a very indirect approach. It's much more efficient to just use an
RF source to ionize D atoms, then accelerate the resulting nuclei in an electric
field of 20 kV of so. This is in fact how the first fusion reactions were
created, yet even this direct approach has a COP  1.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:IR UFOs

2012-11-23 Thread Alan Fletcher

 I'd be a bit more impressed if he gave the exact location
 (Melbourne?), direction, and timestamps. Is it video or time-lapse?

11:30am with a webcam (FPS?)  -- I initially thought it might be IR stars 
setting, but they would be on a diagonal top-right to bottom-left-ish.

Most likely a flock of geese.

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:17 PM,  mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 ...all of this makes me wonder if it might be safer NOT to scram the reactor.
 That way it can continue to provide power itself to power it's own auxiliary
 equipment.

You have to dump the generated power somewhere.  Maybe some big resistors?  :-)

Re: [Vo]:The excimer laser

2012-11-23 Thread Eric Walker

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:29 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

The problem with this approach is lack of ROI. To start with only a
 fraction of
 the incident x-rays are going to kick an electron out of a lower orbital.
 When
 it does happen, only a fraction of the time would this produce an
 energetic D
 nucleus. Then only a fraction of those energetic D nuclei would actually
 undergo
 fusion.

 All in all, I fear that all those fractions multiplied together are going
 to
 result in a COP  1.


This is my way of learning nuclear physics on the sly -- I say things, and
then Robin sets the record straight. ;)

There was one detail I left out, because I didn't understand it -- Ron
referred to the classical turning point.  It almost sounded like he
envisioned two (and not just one) dueterons being pulled in together (or
pushed out, together?) and then meeting at a specific location; i.e., the
movement of the dueterons seemed to be directed rather than thermal.  If
true, perhaps this would take care of some of the loss of COP through
fractions being multiplied together.

I don't have a sophisticated enough understanding of the forces involved to
see how this is supposed to work; perhaps it is either of:

(1) A higher-shell electron moves in to fill the vacancy, pulling in
a deuteron as it does, until it reaches the classical turning point --
maybe the point at which coulomb repulsion stops the deuteron from going
any further; presumably it will not be moving for the brief moment that it
is at that point, but perhaps Ron Maimon only intends that the fusion event
occur before or after this point.
(2) The original, ejected electron pulls the deuteron outwards.  This would
seem to have the disadvantage of not resulting in an especially directed
focusing of deuterons at one another.

I think Ron Maimon was proposing that there will have been two inner shell
electrons that will have been ejected, but I'm not sure.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

2012-11-23 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

I'll admit I don't get this. The reactor stays hot because of residual 
radioactivity. And if it isn't cooled, it gets  *hotter* than normal operation 
under power. So there should be enough power there to the turbines to keep it 
-- and maybe the fuel storage ponds -- cool. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 23, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:17 PM,  mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
 
 ...all of this makes me wonder if it might be safer NOT to scram the reactor.
 That way it can continue to provide power itself to power it's own auxiliary
 equipment.
 
 You have to dump the generated power somewhere.  Maybe some big resistors?  
 :-)

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

mix...@bigpond.com wrote:


 ...all of this makes me wonder if it might be safer NOT to scram the
 reactor.
 That way it can continue to provide power itself to power it's own
 auxiliary
 equipment.


It would blow up in no time. The aux equipment takes a couple of megawatts
I think; the reactor produces 3000 MW thermal.

Under normal circumstances, and in every previous reactor accident as far
as I know, the aux generators have been intact and they worked fine. They
were never the source of the problem. After the 2007 earthquake, one of the
Diesel aux generators at Kashiwazaki burned up, but there was plenty of
extra capacity and that would not have been a problem even in a long term
emergency cut off from the grid.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

I can't resist jumping back in at this point. These full bridge devices are
mostly used as motor controllers. In such applications you just need to
turn it on and have it supply an appropriate AC signal while the motor is
running and then turn it off. There's never any need for fine control or
signal modulation. Also, the full bridge design, on its own, doesn't lead
directly to any solution for the problem of superimposing the Q pulses on
the loading current.

Of course you're free to go your own way, but I think the motor controller
approach may be more difficult than just trying to adopt Godes' design
directly. If you look at the first figure
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7NVukY_dlR0/UISB4e_LSAI/AW4/Rl9BROYHIHQ/s1600/Q-Pulses-1.PNGfrom
here
http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/thoughts-about-godes-brillouin-patent.htmlyou'll
see two traces, the green one at top and the blue one at the bottom.
The green spikes are the Q-pulses and the blue pulse train is the input
from the microcontroller.

The input pulse train from the microcontroller has a 50% duty cycle, but
the Q pulses are narrow. In other words, the Q pulse width is not a
function of the width of the input pulses. Instead, each positive-going
edge on the input causes a narrow positive-going Q pulse, and each
negative-going edge on the input signal causes a narrow negative-going Q
pulse. The characteristics of each Q pulse are set by the choice of
inductor and capacitor (labeled L1 and C2 in my circuit) and the load (R1
in my circuit), and not directly by any control signal.

Note that my C2 is equivalent to Godes' C5 in figure 3C of the patent
application. I apologize for not paying more attention to these labeling
issues. Also note that my circuit includes an ideal voltage source V1 at
upper left. A real circuit needs a discharge capacitor to simulate an ideal
voltage source. This is shown at extreme upper left in Godes' figure 3C.
Confusingly, the discharge capacitor is labeled C2 in Godes' designations.

Now, the distinctions between my partial circuit and Godes' complete one.
First, in Godes' circuit you see a transformer, T8 (part number F626-12)
in place of my inductor L1. That transformer is playing two roles. These
are (a) its primary winding acts as an inductor, playing the role of my L1.
And (b), the Q pulses couple across to the secondary winding; but in the
secondary, which shares no ground reference with the primary, Godes is free
to establish any ground reference (or DC loading current +V) he likes.

As you can see from figures 3C and also 3B and 3A, Godes uses the center
tap of the transformer as ground (or +V) for the loading current. Now,
since the transfomer-coupled Q pulses are swinging end to end across the
secondary winding and the center tap of the secondary is the reference
point, the Q pulses are swinging positive and negative relative to the
reference point of the loading current. In other words they are AC.

The reason I used the term ground (or +V) and reference point above is
that it doesn't matter for the superimposed Q-pulses. It does matter for
the loading current; you have to pick the loading current polarity so that
the center tap of the transformer leads to the electrochemical anode. The
ensures that the core will be the cathode, so it will evolve the H2 to
load. You can more clearly see in figure 3A, where the core is labeled
15. Figure 3A also shows how the two ends of the secondary of T8 (which
is not labeled, but there's only one transformer in figure 3A) are across
the core; thus, as the Q pulses swing positive and negative, the polarity
reverses across the core, which is the true meaning of AC in this case.

In summary, you could probably generate interesting pulse trains with a
variety of techniques. But I think the clever use of T8 is essential. I'm
not going to try and explain why I think this, it's partly gut feel. I just
wouldn't imagine trying to solve this problem in other ways when the Godes'
circuit shows a way of doing it that I believe will work.

Also, to summarize the parameters that Godes can vary from the
microcontroller, they are: (1) the amplitude of the Q pulses, labeled 55a
in figures 3A, 3B, and 3C; (2) presumably the width of the input pulses,
which control the spacing between positive- and negative-going Q pulses;
(3) the timing of the input pulses, which controls the timing of Q-pulse
pairs. But not the shape of the pulses, which is determined by the
inductance of the primary of T8, the value of C5, the load on the secondary
of T8 (i.e. the impedance of the wet cell) and the coupling characteristics
of T8.

It is this last bit that explains why I think I would need decent test
equipment to get this circuit working - the AC characteristics are going to
be weird and will need to be discovered bit by bit. For example changes in
the AC impedance of the wet cell caused by ongoing electrolysis could cause
the whole secondary circuit to begin oscillating under the drive of the Q
pulses

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:

I'll admit I don't get this. The reactor stays hot because of residual
 radioactivity. And if it isn't cooled, it gets  *hotter* than normal
 operation under power. So there should be enough power there to the
 turbines to keep it -- and maybe the fuel storage ponds -- cool.


There is not enough power to drive the main turbines. I think it takes at
least 600 MW of heat from the reactors to drive the turbines at 200 MWe
(20% of normal capacity). After a SCRAM the power is reduced to around 5%,
and it falls rapidly after that.

I suppose you could have smaller auxiliary steam turbines. I think at some
plants, some of the initial response is powered by main reactor steam. But
the overhead for the pumps and other equipment operating is something like
15% so they would not be enough to keep the clockwork going. Whereas if all
you want to do is keep cooling water flowing through the reactor into the
cooling towers, a much smaller set of pumps will suffice.

As I said, the aux systems have never been destroyed in any previous
accident. They would not have been destroyed in this one if anyone had
imagined a tsunami this large might strike. They could have located the
equipment where the tsunami did not reach, or they could have built a
higher seawall. The accident could have been prevented easily if they had
known it was coming. You cannot anticipate everything . . .

Someone did, in fact, anticipate this. He wrote a report pointing to
historic evidence for a tsunami at this location a thousand years ago. As
someone else pointed out, they think of everything in cases like this.
After a major accident at a nuclear plant, or with a large modern airplane,
you can always find an engineering report worrying about that problem. But
you cannot fix every possible problem. If you tried, the power plant would
always be under repair being retrofitted; the airplane would never leave
the ground.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

I suspect the reason plant designs don't attempt to harness the decay heat
is that in one key accident scenario (massive LOCA) you aren't going to be
able to generate any steam pressure from core heat. Being able to address
this scenario is essential to getting licensed. So a secondary power system
that doesn't rely on the plant at all (batteries, diesel generators, etc.)
is mandatory.

From the standpoint of the plant designers, the above reasoning means the
decay heat subsystem looks like a completely unnecessary extra cost. They
already have the mandatory secondary and there's no licensing requirement
for a tertiary power system that may not work in some failure scenarios.

Jeff


On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:

 I'll admit I don't get this. The reactor stays hot because of residual
 radioactivity. And if it isn't cooled, it gets  *hotter* than normal
 operation under power. So there should be enough power there to the
 turbines to keep it -- and maybe the fuel storage ponds -- cool.


 There is not enough power to drive the main turbines. I think it takes at
 least 600 MW of heat from the reactors to drive the turbines at 200 MWe
 (20% of normal capacity). After a SCRAM the power is reduced to around 5%,
 and it falls rapidly after that.

 I suppose you could have smaller auxiliary steam turbines. I think at some
 plants, some of the initial response is powered by main reactor steam. But
 the overhead for the pumps and other equipment operating is something like
 15% so they would not be enough to keep the clockwork going. Whereas if all
 you want to do is keep cooling water flowing through the reactor into the
 cooling towers, a much smaller set of pumps will suffice.

 As I said, the aux systems have never been destroyed in any previous
 accident. They would not have been destroyed in this one if anyone had
 imagined a tsunami this large might strike. They could have located the
 equipment where the tsunami did not reach, or they could have built a
 higher seawall. The accident could have been prevented easily if they had
 known it was coming. You cannot anticipate everything . . .

 Someone did, in fact, anticipate this. He wrote a report pointing to
 historic evidence for a tsunami at this location a thousand years ago. As
 someone else pointed out, they think of everything in cases like this.
 After a major accident at a nuclear plant, or with a large modern airplane,
 you can always find an engineering report worrying about that problem. But
 you cannot fix every possible problem. If you tried, the power plant would
 always be under repair being retrofitted; the airplane would never leave
 the ground.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

2012-11-23 Thread Axil Axil

“So a secondary power system that doesn't rely on the plant at all
(batteries, diesel generators, etc.) is mandatory.”

This sort of system is active; active is bad, but a completely passive
reactor shutdown process is entirely possible. The nuclear industry in the
west will not build such a system because it is not a light water reactor.
   The Indians will use sodium heat pipes for passive reactor cool down.
This is possible because the Indians use liquid lead as a coolant.



Cheers:Axil

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:

 So a secondary power system that doesn't rely on the plant at all
 (batteries, diesel generators, etc.) is mandatory.

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

Although I did it as a kid in Maine, I just hope we are all not burning
firewood in a year to stay warm.

On Friday, November 23, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:


 “So a secondary power system that doesn't rely on the plant at all
 (batteries, diesel generators, etc.) is mandatory.”

 This sort of system is active; active is bad, but a completely passive
 reactor shutdown process is entirely possible. The nuclear industry in the
 west will not build such a system because it is not a light water reactor.
The Indians will use sodium heat pipes for passive reactor cool down.
 This is possible because the Indians use liquid lead as a coolant.



 Cheers:Axil

 On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Jeff Berkowitz 
 pdx...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'pdx...@gmail.com');
  wrote:

 So a secondary power system that doesn't rely on the plant at all
 (batteries, diesel generators, etc.) is mandatory.

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

Thanks for explaining this Jeff.  Did you see that he is using 2 cathodes?
 What is the difference between the two?

Initially I was thinking about just trying to replicate his circuit, but
the F626-12 seems to be pretty hard to track down.

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:

 F626-12

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

If you are referring to his Figure 3A - I don't *think* he's using two
cathodes. I think the image of two dots with two lines between them is
intended to convey that the cathode has physical extent - he describes it
somewhere as a grid of nickel wires (?) - and the Q pulses swing positive
and negative across the cathode when referenced to the center tap of the
secondary. This also suggested by figure 3B where the core (again, labeled
15) is just a horizontal line between vertical lines running to the ends
of the secondary of T8. Of course I could have missed what you're seeing.
Or we could be looking at the same thing and I could be completely missing
it.  ;-)

With respect to finding the part - the exact part is probably not critical.
The circuit design on our blog page doesn't use the same half-bridge driver
chip or the same MOSFETs as Godes either, it just produces similar
behaviors (I hope). The key points are that it's a radio frequency
isolation transformer with a certain turns ratio between primary and
secondary. (The fact that it's a radio frequency part supports the whole
argument about the Q pulses - it has to pass those higher harmonics as
described in the blog page, or the pulses will come out rounded in the
secondary, the skin effect won't come into the play to the same effect
there, etc.)

I found this link:
http://www.lintechcomponents.com/product/010478953/F62612H/72656

which might be a starting point for finding or making something similar.

Really do be careful. We wouldn't want to lose you. It looks like a 3:1
voltage step-up in the secondary. This circuit can burn a path through your
internal organs faster than your muscle fibers can possibly contract to
take your hands away. Read up on high voltage technique and think about
every action. Always wear eye protection. I once saw a miswired high
powered sonar driver blow some of the driver components into little shards
some of which became embedded in the wallboard behind the lab bench. This
isn't like working on digital electronics.

Jeff



On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks for explaining this Jeff.  Did you see that he is using 2 cathodes?
  What is the difference between the two?

 Initially I was thinking about just trying to replicate his circuit, but
 the F626-12 seems to be pretty hard to track down.

 On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:

 F626-12

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

Jeff,

Look at figure 9 on this page: http://www.rexresearch.com/godes/godes.htm

Two cathodes are shown. It almost looks like the 2 cathodes are
connected together at the bottom. Is he running the Q in a loop through
this, and the loading pulse through the anode do you think?

Here is some support for the idea. In this paper (
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf
-- bottom of column 1 page 1), he says, High voltage, bipolar,
narrow
pulses were sent through the cathode and separately pulse-width
modulated (PWM) electrolysis through the cell (between the anode and
cathode).

So, looks to me like he loops Q through the cathode and the DC loading
pulse comes through the anode through the cell to the cathode.

Also, are you suggesting that his alternating current is alternating DC
current (never goes to truly negative voltage)?

Thank you for the caution. I will research and be careful with this.

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:

If you are referring to his Figure 3A - I don't *think* he's using two
cathodes. I think the image of two dots with two lines between them is
intended to convey that the cathode has physical extent - he describes it
somewhere as a grid of nickel wires (?) - and the Q pulses swing positive
and negative across the cathode when referenced to the center tap of the
secondary. This also suggested by figure 3B where the core (again, labeled
15) is just a horizontal line between vertical lines running to the ends
of the secondary of T8. Of course I could have missed what you're seeing.
Or we could be looking at the same thing and I could be completely missing
it. ;-)

With respect to finding the part - the exact part is probably not
critical. The circuit design on our blog page doesn't use the same
half-bridge driver chip or the same MOSFETs as Godes either, it just
produces similar behaviors (I hope). The key points are that it's a radio
frequency isolation transformer with a certain turns ratio between primary
and secondary. (The fact that it's a radio frequency part supports the
whole argument about the Q pulses - it has to pass those higher harmonics
as described in the blog page, or the pulses will come out rounded in the
secondary, the skin effect won't come into the play to the same effect
there, etc.)

I found this link:
http://www.lintechcomponents.com/product/010478953/F62612H/72656

which might be a starting point for finding or making something similar.

Really do be careful. We wouldn't want to lose you. It looks like a 3:1
voltage step-up in the secondary. This circuit can burn a path through your
internal organs faster than your muscle fibers can possibly contract to
take your hands away. Read up on high voltage technique and think about
every action. Always wear eye protection. I once saw a miswired high
powered sonar driver blow some of the driver components into little shards
some of which became embedded in the wallboard behind the lab bench. This
isn't like working on digital electronics.

Jeff

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks for explaining this Jeff. Did you see that he is using 2
cathodes? What is the difference between the two?

Initially I was thinking about just trying to replicate his circuit, but
the F626-12 seems to be pretty hard to track down.

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:

F626-12

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 23 Nov 2012 18:04:18 -0500:
Hi,

Fission reactors have control rods that allow the power output to be varied. I
found one reference to a factor of 1E7 for the dynamic range, though I doubt
this is common.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=9aGhhrMU-IkCpg=PA495lpg=PA495dq=%22fission+reactor%22+%22dynamic+range%22source=blots=dWUV1cGxw7sig=E8IdNUPJ-EM5cdhCns1mbCKpxZohl=ensa=Xei=LjuwUPuHGfCYiAfs0IGoAwved=0CEkQ6AEwBA#v=onepageq=%22fission%20reactor%22%20%22dynamic%20range%22f=false


mix...@bigpond.com wrote:


 ...all of this makes me wonder if it might be safer NOT to scram the
 reactor.
 That way it can continue to provide power itself to power it's own
 auxiliary
 equipment.


It would blow up in no time. The aux equipment takes a couple of megawatts
I think; the reactor produces 3000 MW thermal.

Under normal circumstances, and in every previous reactor accident as far
as I know, the aux generators have been intact and they worked fine. They
were never the source of the problem. After the 2007 earthquake, one of the
Diesel aux generators at Kashiwazaki burned up, but there was plenty of
extra capacity and that would not have been a problem even in a long term
emergency cut off from the grid.

- Jed
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:The excimer laser

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:57:02 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
There was one detail I left out, because I didn't understand it -- Ron
referred to the classical turning point.  It almost sounded like he


I suspect that the classical turning point refers the distance from the
nucleus where an approaching positively charged particle has used up all it's
kinetic energy, and momentarily comes to a halt, before being ejected.

IOW the bounce distance.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

I've made a very interesting simulation circuit in LTSpice. I started with
another template made by someone else outputting a simple DC pulse (using a
555 IC). In the simulation, I get high frequency AC (one sweep from
positive to negative and back to zero then dead space).

Here is a single pulse from the sim:
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/qpulse.png

Here is a more expanded view:
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/qpulse2.png

Here is the LTSpice sim:
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/555qpulse.asc

Anyway, don't know if this would work in reality, but looks interesting in
the simulation.

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

Jeff,

Look at figure 9 on this page: http://www.rexresearch.com/godes/godes.htm

Two cathodes are shown. It almost looks like the 2 cathodes are
connected together at the bottom. Is he running the Q in a loop through
this, and the loading pulse through the anode do you think?

Here is some support for the idea. In this paper (
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf
-- bottom of column 1 page 1), he says, High voltage, bipolar, narrow
pulses were sent through the cathode and separately pulse-width
modulated (PWM) electrolysis through the cell (between the anode and
cathode).

So, looks to me like he loops Q through the cathode and the DC loading
pulse comes through the anode through the cell to the cathode.

Also, are you suggesting that his alternating current is alternating DC
current (never goes to truly negative voltage)?

Thank you for the caution. I will research and be careful with this.

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:

I found this link:
http://www.lintechcomponents.com/product/010478953/F62612H/72656

which might be a starting point for finding or making something similar.

Jeff

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks for explaining this Jeff. Did you see that he is using 2
cathodes? What is the difference between the two?

Initially I was thinking about just trying to replicate his circuit, but
the F626-12 seems to be pretty hard to track down.

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.comwrote:

F626-12

RE: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

2012-11-23 Thread Jones Beene

Anyone looking for an efficient low power electrical circuit for a number of
alternative energy uses - possibly electrolysis, but that is less certain -
should check out the latest joule ringer low power self-oscillating
circuits. In these circuits, potential and natural oscillation are in a
high-gain positive feedback loop to the extent that noise buildup seems to
create a bit of its own current.

Here is a simple circuit that is fascinating in its implications:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td8v2oc4JFwlist=UUIKzUKkh7XtnSYPW0AJb-9wind
ex=2feature=plcp
http://www.laserhacker.com/JouleRingerCrossOver.html

... since it has minimized internal circuit losses and gets natural
oscillation via only two transistors - not quite a Darlington but more like
what we used to do 50 years ago with a one tube feedback circuit. A charged
cap and no battery can keep an LED light bulb going for a surprisingly long
time - as you see in the video. 

Back in the old days, kids doing Morse code transmission on a low budget
with the weak batteries available at the time, could build a simple high
gain regen feedback loop (aka: autodyne) with one vacuum tube, since high
noise was not the major problem (for that use). This kind of circuit went
out of favor when transistors came along, but Wiki still remembers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_circuit

Positive feedback tends to run to instability as a natural feature, since
there will typically be exponential growth of gain towards a failure point
... so obviously it has extreme limitations with communications
applications. 

But less so with energy. In fact this could be a most interesting
combination ... since noise can be your friend ... when all you care about
is gain.

Jones
attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:The excimer laser

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:57:02 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
There was one detail I left out, because I didn't understand it -- Ron
referred to the classical turning point.  It almost sounded like he
envisioned two (and not just one) dueterons being pulled in together (or
pushed out, together?) and then meeting at a specific location; i.e., the
movement of the dueterons seemed to be directed rather than thermal.  If
true, perhaps this would take care of some of the loss of COP through
fractions being multiplied together.
[snip]

Do you have a URL for Ron's work?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:The excimer laser

2012-11-23 Thread Eric Walker

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

Do you have a URL for Ron's work?



 See the section titled My Personal Theory and what follows it in Ron's
response to this physics.SE question:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/why-is-cold-fusion-considered-bogus/13734

The explanation he proposes is part of a longer response to the question,
Why is cold fusion considered bogus?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

2012-11-23 Thread David Roberson

That is the same question I asked myself when the problem first came up.  I 
concluded that a scram most likely was necessary since the output of the 
reactor is normally many times the requirement to supply the backup equipment 
load.  I suspect that it would be extremely difficult to back the power output 
downward enough without loosing system stability.  In fact, the power resulting 
just from the nuclear decay elements might exceed the load required with no 
ability to dissipate the excess energy safely.  One might wonder if the left 
over heat could be deposited within the inlet water as long as the pumps were 
operating.  I suppose that it might have been possible had the personnel at the 
reactors been trained to handle the problem in that manner.


I am afraid that time is their worst enemy when a crisis such as this arises 
unless everyone is trained for exactly this scenario.



Someone more familiar with reduced output operation of a reactor might know the 
answers to our questions.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 5:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:53:25 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
Vrol, the insertion of the rods does in fact kill the chain reaction as you 
suspect.  The problem is that energy continues to be released by the highly 
radioactive elements that reside within the active reactor.  This heat is 
adequate to cause a meltdown if not removed.


Dave

...all of this makes me wonder if it might be safer NOT to scram the reactor.
That way it can continue to provide power itself to power it's own auxiliary
equipment.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [VO]: More support for variable radioactive decay rates...

2012-11-23 Thread pagnucco


New comment from Lattice Energy on apparent solar effect on nuclear decay:

Lattice Energy LLC-Observed Variations in Rates of Nuclear Decay-Nov 23 2012

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcobserved-variations-in-rates-of-nuclear-decaynov-23-2012

Andy Findlay wrote Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:29:43 -
From New Scientist (needs free registration):

Half-life strife: Seasons change in the atom's heart

Nothing is supposed to speed up or slow down radioactive decay. So how
come the sun seems to be messing with some of our elements?

The evidence keeps accumulating...

Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels

Yes, that figure is directly from the patent. I think we're on the same
page.

Figure 9 shows two cells: the real cell on the left and the control
(joule heat) cell on the right. Four wires are shown leaving the real cell.
The leftmost is a temperature sensor that runs to a data logger. The middle
two run vertically from the cathode to the control board. These are J1-1
and J1-2 (Connection point for Core) shown at lower right in figure 3C
of the patent. In other words, these are the Q pulses taken from the
secondary of the transformer.

In the patent, Cathode and Core are synonymous, although this is not
immediately evident. And yes, the loading pulse is the current from anode
to cathode in the electrolytic cell. It's the ordinary current flow of an
electrolytic cell; he calls it loading current because the flow of this
current evolves H2 at the cathode, causing the nickel (or whatever metal)
to load with H2, forming nickel hydride. Here the only difference from
any other electrolytic cell is that Godes can turn this current flow on and
off under software control from the microcontroller, hence loading
pulses. This anode current flow is the fourth (rightmost) wire entering
the real cell in the figure. It runs back to the center tap of the
secondary of T8, and is weirdly labeled F04 in Figure 3C.

In the patent text, Godes kind of disclaims the importance of control over
the loading (electrolytic) current, saying he could only get excess heat
when it had an 80% duty cycle or higher. I think he is implying that if the
electrolytic (loading) current was just on all the time, it might be fine.

So at the bottom of all this, you just have an electrolytic cell with
high-current, high-voltage Q pulses sweeping back and forth across the
extent of the cathode, first one polarity, then the other. And that brings
us to your question about really AC and truly negative.

When an electrician wires your house, it's important for safety reasons
that there be a ground which is referenced to the earth, the real
ground (earth ground). This leads people to think about ground as some
kind of absolute thing. But in designed circuits like this, ground is a
more complex idea. Every circuit is of course a loop, and a complex design
like this one may be broken up in to more than one loop with the loops
isolated by transformers, optical isolators or the like. In this case the
ground of one loop may have nothing in common with the ground of
another loop.

Here's an example: suppose you have a battery-powered electrolytic cell
running on a table top. No point in the entire loop has anything in common
with your house wiring. As a result, the idea of a voltage between any
part of the battery-powered electrolytic circuit and any part of your house
wiring has no meaning. Similarly, no point on the left (primary) side of T8
- the driver circuitry - need have anything in common with any point on the
right (secondary) side of T8, the electrolytic cell.

This is even harder to see in Godes' circuit, because (as I make it out),
the ground for the cathode is referenced through the liquid electrolyte,
the anode, a current source, and back to the center tap of the secondary
of T8. Using this definition, the Q pulses are truly AC, because the
polarity of the pulses will swing both positive and negative relative to
the anode which is the same [* note below] as the center tap of the
transformer. If you connect the black probe of an oscilloscope to the
center tap and put the red probe on the core (cathode) with the circuit
running, you'll see positive going pulses with positive voltage and
negative-going pulses with negative voltage. This is what the core sees.
It's truly AC because the polarity reverses.

[* note: if you look at figure 3C, it's even more complex because there is
a small shunt resistor, R3, between the center tap and the anode. This
allows measuring the electrolytic current flow. There will be a small
voltage drop across R3, so the voltage at the anode will never be quite the
same as the center tap. There also has to be something to actually provide
the current to the anode; this is shown as a circle with a downward
pointing arrow labeled Current Source in figure 3A.  None of this affects
any of the reasoning above: the Q pulses are still symmetrical, positive
and negative, around a reference that is roughly defined by the liquid
electrolyte the cathode is immersed in.]

The patent doesn't appear to go into circuit detail about the current
source for the anode, so there's a certain amount of hand waving in the
above.

Jeff

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jeff,

 Look at figure 9 on this page:  http://www.rexresearch.com/godes/godes.htm

 Two cathodes are shown.  It almost looks like the 2 cathodes are
 connected together at the bottom.  Is he running the Q in a loop through
 this, and the loading pulse through the anode do you think?

 Here is some support for the idea.  In this paper (

Re: [Vo]:The excimer laser

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 23 Nov 2012 19:49:15 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

Do you have a URL for Ron's work?



 See the section titled My Personal Theory and what follows it in Ron's
response to this physics.SE question:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/why-is-cold-fusion-considered-bogus/13734

The explanation he proposes is part of a longer response to the question,
Why is cold fusion considered bogus?

Eric

I think what he's trying to say is that a fast D nucleus can also knock an inner
electron out of Pd, which can then in turn accelerate another D nucleus, in a
train of reactions.

However the problem with that is that a fast D will lose most of its energy
ionizing valence electrons rather than K shell electrons, so the process
actually dies almost instantly. Hence I don't really see a band state being
reasonably populated.

A great many concurrent reactions would need to occur for two Ds to find
themselves in the neighbourhood of the same nucleus, at the same time. I guess
the question is whether or not enough Kshell holes are created by the fusion
reaction products to make the whole process OU.

There is also the question of what gets the process kicked off initially, though
natural background radiation might act as a trigger.

Essentially what this theory does is provide a means of temporarily storing the
energy of a fusion reaction, and parceling it out to lots of other D nuclei so
that hopefully at least one two of them can fuse too.

Note also that as the Z of the host nucleus rises (with consequent increase in K
shell energy) two things happen:

1) The D's get closer which should enhance the individual reaction rate.
2) The number of K shell vacancies created by fast particles decreases, which
should decrease the overall reaction rate.

Since 1 and 2 work in opposite directions, there may be an optimal Z value for
the host lattice. Of course the host lattice also has to absorb H/D.

I note that Ron doesn't try to apply this explanation to the Ni-H results. The K
shell electron of Ni only has an ionization energy of about 7-8 keV, which is
rather on the low side.

All that having been said however I still rather like this theory. It seems to
have much going for it.

{BTW quote: 

Now suppose that two of these accelerated deuterons happen to come close to the
same Pd nucleus. This can easily produce a fusion event at the turning point,
the deuterons have around 20KeV after all, and the fusion rates at 20 KeV in
beams is not that small, let alone in cases where the wave function is
concentrated near a nucleus with a classical turning point (where the wave
function is enhanced).

I think what he's trying to say here is a that when the deuterons come to a halt
near another nucleus, they are also relatively motionless with regard to one
another, but at close range. That means that there is a large overlap in their
De Broglie waves, and the tunneling probability is consequently enhanced.}

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 23 Nov 2012 23:07:53 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
That is the same question I asked myself when the problem first came up.  I 
concluded that a scram most likely was necessary since the output of the 
reactor is normally many times the requirement to supply the backup equipment 
load.  I suspect that it would be extremely difficult to back the power output 
downward enough without loosing system stability.  In fact, the power 
resulting just from the nuclear decay elements might exceed the load required 
with no ability to dissipate the excess energy safely.  One might wonder if 
the left over heat could be deposited within the inlet water as long as the 
pumps were operating.  I suppose that it might have been possible had the 
personnel at the reactors been trained to handle the problem in that manner.

I think the thermal efficiency of most nuclear plants is around 25-30%. That
means that they usually dispose of around two thirds of their full power output
as waste heat. IOW if the auxiliary equipment is operating, then they can easily
dispose of even the total power output at a reduced operating level.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:The excimer laser