Re: [Vo]:4D reactions HPG - was :Arata device schematic
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Wed, 28 May 2008 21:13:05 -0600: Hi Ed, Vortex is bouncing my posts again, could you forward this for me? [snip] Robin, If this energy is produced by a nuclear reaction, then neutrons and gamma are produced. It clearly is a nuclear reaction, because moderator implies neutrons. The Hydrogen (Deuterium?) atoms serve as a moderator, because protons have almost the same mass as neutrons, which means that when a fast neutron hits a proton, the neutron stops, and the proton absorbs almost all of the energy, which it then rapidly loses through ionization of the surrounding atoms. IOW a single collision can be enough to thermalize a neutron. This *may* mean that little neutron shielding is required, particularly if the outer shielding is rich in protons, and contains no fissionable material (e.g. plastic). This reactor is no different from normal reactors. It produces neutrons and gamma. The only thing that makes it less dangerous is its small size. Nevertheless, it is considerable source of radiation that needs to be kept under observation and control. The size is similar to a ship reactor, but such reactors are designed to be observed and serviced. The proposed reactor is to be buried, out of sight and out of mind. This requires significant shielding. In addition, the core would be too active to dig up in five years and haul away for reprocessing, at least right away. Of course the whole thing is dug up, but the core is still very radioactive. This can only be protected by significant shielding, which adds to the weight and cost. Imagine the political problems of transporting a potentially active reactor that contains massive amounts of radioactive material. It isn't the core that gets dug up, it's the entire reactor, shielding included. The gammas would be shielded by burying the thing underground. If the reactor output can be varied, then it can probably also be turned off, which would kill off the prompt gammas, though there would still be the gamma output from the daughter nuclides to deal with after shutdown. This could indeed make transport tricky. In addition, the electric conversion equipment would have to be contained in the shielded structure to avoid releasing radioactive materials. Not necessarily. One would just need the first level heat exchanger to be internal, so that the fluid exiting the reactor never actually comes in contact with the fuel. But what transports the heat within the reactor? Water can not be used because a leak would be catastrophic. Helium or hydrogen might work, as you note, but it would have to be pumped, requiring equipment that could never be serviced while being exposed to intense radiation. I suggest, too many engineering problems exist in this design to make it economic as a nuclear reactor. That is why I expected this to be a chemical source of energy. Perhaps, as Jones suspected, this is only a dream being used as a method to extract money from the uneducated. I called the company and talked to a phone-answering person who said someone would get back to me. Heard nothing yet. Regards, Ed This means the energy conversion process needs to be completely automatic. While I agree, the hydride would make the nuclear reaction fail-safe, it does not solve the significant engineering problems the design would have. UH6 is not used in conventional nuclear reactors in spite of the fail safe nature because it is very reactive to water and air. Perhaps they use Helium cooling. The danger is too great when water cooling is used. One has to ask how the cooling is accomplished on this design? Good question. Note however that they still don't have regulatory approval. Perhaps for the very reasons you state. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:4D reactions HPG - was :Arata device schematic
--- Ed I think this is only a way to provide chemical heat by converting UH6 to U3O8. I do not see how it could be chemical if the assertion that it will run 24/7 for *5 years* before refueling is true. If the U is natural, that much of it (with water as a moderator) would certainly go critical. Even if the U is depleted, or if there are poisons to keep it subcritical - that much of it in one place, for only chemical conversion - would be unimaginable Jones
Re: [Vo]:4D reactions HPG - was :Arata device schematic
Is the so-called battery reactor chemical or otherwise ? this is an interesting question. If the fuel is depleted Uranium, and there is a lot of that stuff around, then the operation could be related to recycling reactants - using both the heat and gamma flux from radioactive decay to reduce the oxide. However, unlike the RTG type satellite reactors, which use heat from Pu decay and then thermoelectric conversion into electricity - this new slant would be different in two ways. Obviously, it would be nice to know for sure- how it works. Why is it such a secret? Depleted U is actually more radioactive than natural, but far less than Pu (much longer half-life), but with enough of it in place (10 tons ?) - then one might be able to engineer and cycle a portion of it from a low gamma cathode zone where it oxidizes with oxygen, creating even more heat and releasing some hydrogen, and then is replenished and recycled back into an anode zone, where it is reduced back to metal hydride, using both the hydrogen, full gamma, and some parasitic electrical drain. Never seen this mentioned- total speculation but if current is being reused, then LENR could be a contributing factor. IOW this scenario is most unlikely - but everything about the sparce description of this reactor is both unlikely, and suspicious. ... or maybe the BLP announcement today - has tainted everything and made me more suspicious than is reasonable - Ha! shades of the ghost of Art Rosenblum and the infamous Mills interview over a decades ago where Randy sez point-blank: operating hydrino reactor will be available in two years... Art fell for it, as did most everyone else. RIP Art Rosenblum: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/ArtRosenblum.html Jones
Re: [Vo]:4D reactions HPG - was :Arata device schematic
Jones, If this is a nuclear reactor, the radiation would be too dangerous to make this practical. Even if it were buried deep enough to stop the radiation, it could not be safely dug up after 5 years. Besides, no sane person would want a nuclear reactor buried near them. The chemical reaction is very energetic, with enough stored energy in a few tons of material to make this work. However, I personally doubt that this idea will go anywhere because of the various engineering problems. Ed Jones Beene wrote: --- Ed I think this is only a way to provide chemical heat by converting UH6 to U3O8. I do not see how it could be chemical if the assertion that it will run 24/7 for *5 years* before refueling is true. If the U is natural, that much of it (with water as a moderator) would certainly go critical. Even if the U is depleted, or if there are poisons to keep it subcritical - that much of it in one place, for only chemical conversion - would be unimaginable Jones
Re: [Vo]:4D reactions HPG - was :Arata device schematic
On May 28, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Jones Beene wrote: [snip] Depleted U is actually more radioactive than natural, [snip AFAIK depleted uranium typically means the stuff left over after U235 separation process from the mined natural uranium, not what's left over after burning U in fuel rods. Depleted uranium has about 1/3 the U235 that natural uranium does. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:4D reactions HPG - was :Arata device schematic
--- Horace AFAIK depleted uranium typically means the stuff left over after U235 separation process from the mined natural uranium, not what's left over after burning U in fuel rods. True, and there was implication otherwise. Depleted uranium has about 1/3 the U235 that natural uranium does. More like 40% remains but in either case, the half-life of either 238 or 235 is in the billions of years, and fairly close (minimum difference) - but this is NOT what makes the depleted material more radioactive ... What makes it more radioactive is the radon daughters and other trace actinides which are left in the depleted material because they are neutron poisons. These can be (literally) millions of times more radioactive- so that even a trace amount makes a huge difference. The military has tried to downplay this fact because they insist that the depleted metal is a safe and affordable heavy metal for armor piercing rounds. It is not safe, by any stretch of the imagination, and is the root cause of many illnesses of troops for the fist Gulf war and Bosnia- who still excrete it in urine 20 years after exposure ... and if its 'true cost' were accounted for, it would not be affordable either. Jones
Re: [Vo]:4D reactions HPG - was :Arata device schematic
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 27 May 2008 21:28:58 -0600: Hi, [snip] Jones, After reading the rather poor description on the website, I think this is only a way to provide chemical heat by converting UH6 to U3O8. No nuclear reaction is involved or possible. As they say, it is like a battery that provides energy for a limited time. [snip] See their FAQ:- How does Hyperion work? Unlike conventional designs, the proposed reactor is self-regulating through the inherent properties of uranium hydride, which serves as a combination fuel and moderator. The temperature-driven mobility of the hydrogen contained in the hydride controls the nuclear activity. If the core temperature increases over the set point, the hydrogen is driven out of the core, the moderation drops, and the power production decreases. If the temperature drops, the hydrogen returns and the process is reversed. Thus the design is inherently fail-safe and will require minimal human oversight. The compact nature and inherent safety open the possibility for low-cost mass production and operation of the reactors. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:4D reactions HPG - was :Arata device schematic
Robin, If this energy is produced by a nuclear reaction, then neutrons and gamma are produced. This requires significant shielding. In addition, the core would be too active to dig up in five years and haul away for reprocessing, at least right away. In addition, the electric conversion equipment would have to be contained in the shielded structure to avoid releasing radioactive materials. This means the energy conversion process needs to be completely automatic. While I agree, the hydride would make the nuclear reaction fail-safe, it does not solve the significant engineering problems the design would have. UH6 is not used in conventional nuclear reactors in spite of the fail safe nature because it is very reactive to water and air. The danger is too great when water cooling is used. One has to ask how the cooling is accomplished on this design? Ed Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 27 May 2008 21:28:58 -0600: Hi, [snip] Jones, After reading the rather poor description on the website, I think this is only a way to provide chemical heat by converting UH6 to U3O8. No nuclear reaction is involved or possible. As they say, it is like a battery that provides energy for a limited time. [snip] See their FAQ:- How does Hyperion work? Unlike conventional designs, the proposed reactor is self-regulating through the inherent properties of uranium hydride, which serves as a combination fuel and moderator. The temperature-driven mobility of the hydrogen contained in the hydride controls the nuclear activity. If the core temperature increases over the set point, the hydrogen is driven out of the core, the moderation drops, and the power production decreases. If the temperature drops, the hydrogen returns and the process is reversed. Thus the design is inherently fail-safe and will require minimal human oversight. The compact nature and inherent safety open the possibility for low-cost mass production and operation of the reactors. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:4D reactions HPG - was :Arata device schematic
Jones, After reading the rather poor description on the website, I think this is only a way to provide chemical heat by converting UH6 to U3O8. No nuclear reaction is involved or possible. As they say, it is like a battery that provides energy for a limited time. I agree, this is a convenient way to move energy to a site where it is required without any danger or the need for complex technology. At the end of its life, the entire charge of uranium can be recycled using another energy source and this energy can be transported to another location. The advantage comes from the fact that the volume density of the energy is greater than in any normal battery and the energy is released only as fast as air is pumped into the system. Of course, some severe and obvious engineering problems may doom the idea to failure. Ed Jones Beene wrote: --- Robin van Spaandonk wrote: If somehow all the D in one cluster shrinks to a size capable of fusing, then one might even get the reaction 4 x D - 2 x He4 (perhaps with an intermediary Be8*), with each getting equal energy and momentum (which has previously been suggested as the primary CF mechanism (Takahashi, or Arata himself?). The more one thinks deeply about the implications of this particular route to fusion (actually even fusion--fission)-- even as 'alien' as it is to traditional nuclear physics- and especially with the importance of the Be intermediary (more on that later) the more it kind of fits into one particular circumstance ... ... that is: the situation of hexavalent hydrides of very large AMU atoms like Uranium, which can adsorb 6 protons or deuterons. Uranium is the perfect candidate for a hybrid reaction which is somewhere between fission and the type of LENR which was promoted by the Cincinatti Group mentioned by Nick Palmer. That one resulted in the disappearance of expected energy and radioactivity, but this would not happen with U. That 6-1 ratio in U might be the reason that this new reactor (below) is for real - and not just vapor-ware despite the total lack of provenance so to speak. When I first read about it, the initial impression was April fool joke which evolved into LENR ripoff but now looks like it may bridge the gap between LENR and the hydrino, and fission, and with a dash of top secret stuff which was not supposed to get out from our National Labs so soon: http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/ http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/news.html The purported inventor (coming out of the woodwork)is Dr. Otis (Pete) Peterson of LANL. I hope he did not set out to rip-off the work-product of others including many LENR experimenters (including Ed Storms) - and let me make it clear that there is NO indication that he did, or has done this... just a fishy smell. That is: in addition to the aforementioned out-of-nowhere lack of provenance... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance Maybe it was a flash of Eureka from an alien encounter or the result of one of those infamous Area 51 reverse-engineered reactors, LOL. Look at the guy's bio. Sorry, it just does not add up from what I can see ... Jones
