RE: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
From: Peter Gluck Dear Jones How is connected GENIE with the Cincy Cell- in your opinion? The connection is that both use electrochemistry (and LENR techniques) to create nuclear reactions which secondarily transmute heavy metals. Here is an old IE article on the CGC http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/IE13-14CincinattiGroup.pdf But the dissimilarity outweighs the similarity, and there is no claim of excess heat in the CGC, whereas the GEC is based upon the prospect of having large excess heat, apparently as a replacement for a fission reactor - what Khim is calling Generation 5. However, the GEC reactor goes well beyond the Boss, Forsley et al patent -- which is simply a System and method for generating particles and that is where the injustice of selective USPTO patent-granting may lie. Not to mention the cleverness of Dr Khim. How did they get coverage for LENR techniques in this application - when all the many others in prior art did not? Does this relate to having the USN as the co-assignee? Yup, there is no doubt about that detail. Our patent office has been a massive failure to the general public in this regard. Europe allows patents for LENR, and even has a separate classification for them - so why not the USA? This puts our small inventors at massive disadvantage. What a bunch of incompetent and spineless yes-men we have in USPTO - and one can only suspect that this goes back to political pressure from the physics establishment and their cronies in congress. BTW, both the CC and GEC produce transmutation in heavy metals which may look like fission, but the GEC is reputed to produce actual fast neutrons for fast fission and excess heat. That would b a huge difference, if true and very valuable indeed. I can find no data indicating that fast fusion has been proved, however - does anyone have a citation for this detail (actual proof of fast fission) ? Probably not ... especially since such data would most likely trigger the 37 C.F.R. 5.2 Secrecy Order. http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/program.html Fast fission is not easy to prove since U235 will fission with thermal or fast neutrons, and one would need to show that the reaction in question was not thermal, if they want it to be novel. Of course this would be ideal for the nuclear submarine, so we have to ask - why has this not been applied to small reactors which are used in submarines and does that relate to Khim's strategy of not patenting the reactor itself? Very clever, Dr. Khim. It is almost as if this disclosure was part of a two-part strategy to avoid Navy oversight (being potentially valuable to some of our enemies for such things as nuclear powered submarines) ... and since they did let it through (without a secrecy order) Khim may have succeeded twice with this strategy - but whose side is he on, really? Is this starting to sound vaguely like an old James Bond plot? Please don't say: No, Dr. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The connection is that both use electrochemistry (and LENR techniques) to create nuclear reactions which secondarily transmute heavy metals. Here is an old IE article on the CGC http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/IE13-14CincinattiGroup.pdf As noted here, those people died of cancer at a fairly young age. I cannot judge, but I got the impression their techniques and measurements were crude. That is also what others said. McKubre told me they scared the hell out of him. He thought they were reducing radioactivity by spewing dangerous radioactive isotopes into the air around the device. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
From: Jed Rothwell As noted here, those people died of cancer at a fairly young age. I cannot judge, but I got the impression their techniques and measurements were crude. That is also what others said. McKubre told me they scared the hell out of him. He thought they were reducing radioactivity by spewing dangerous radioactive isotopes into the air around the device. . spewing may not be accurate, if you mean that a solid or a liquid is carelessly released. Their reactors were sealed and pressurized, so that if anything was released, a slow leak of a radioactive gas (radon, tritium or xenon) is the best candidate. But they rand these reactors for long periods so even a slow leak could be fatal. When one reduces radioactivity by increasing the decay rate of thorium, assuming it is possible to do so, then radon can be expected to increase rapidly. Radon is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas with a short half-life. Typically it causes lung cancer. This would be hastened if the victim was also a cigarette smoker. But these researchers were said to have died from leukemia according to Peter. However, there are a dozen suppression sites on the web that claim that Stan Gleeson of the Cincinnati Group seemed to be perfectly well when he suddenly died at age 48 of a stroke. These sites are going for the conspiracy angle. In any event, when one is afflicted with any kind of advanced cancer - the proximate cause of death is often stroke which itself was caused by the stress of having the cancer. These same websites want us to believe that the MIB were behind the Mallove murder too. Ridiculous. However, in the case of Gleeson, a fatal stroke at age 48 is not inconsistent with radon exposure for only a few years, especially if he was a life-long smoker. No conspiracy is apparent in this case either - but it is a sad way to prove the device works.
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: … “spewing” may not be accurate, if you mean that a solid or a liquid is carelessly released. Their reactors were sealed and pressurized, so that if anything was released, a slow leak of a radioactive gas (radon, tritium or xenon) is the best candidate. . . . I do not know. I never saw one and even if I did I cannot judge seals. But Mike was of the opinion the seals were inadequate, the devices were dangerous, and the reason the radioactivity was decreasing was because the radioactive material was escaping. He may have actually used the word spew -- no doubt hyperbole. You would have to ask him for details. I have seen a number of dangerous and poorly done experiments. Even when every precaution is taken, experiments can be dangerous. No one knows that better than McKubre. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
Curious, that the Navy cites Mitchell Swartz's applications (and Arata) as prior art - all of which have NOT been granted, and the Navy does NOT mention the one which they flagrantly copy. We need a massive overhaul of USPTO due to extreme incompetence. US Navy or not . this patent seems to be borrowing the prior art of the Cincinnati group: Pressurized electro-hydraulic processing - It is a bit irksome that the military gets a free ride from USPTO in many cases such as this. The Cincinnati process remediated (transmuted) thorium in an electrochemical process but they gave up trying to fight the patent office. US 20030201167 A1 http://www.google.com/patents/US20030201167 It is no wonder that Mitchell is bitter over his treatment by USPTO -- when several recent WPO patents have been granted which clearly mention LENR and would have been invalidated, had Mitchell's prior applications been granted, as they should have been. Jones From: Axil Axil https://www.google.com/patents/US8419919?dq=11/859,499 https://www.google.com/patents/US8419919?dq=11/859,499hl=ensa=Xei=A5rfUe 70HMen4AO3yIFwved=0CDYQ6AEwAA hl=ensa=Xei=A5rfUe70HMen4AO3yIFwved=0CDYQ6AEwAA This U.S. Navy patent transmutes radioactive elements into less harmful elements through a benign low energy nuclear reaction process. The patent was granted April 16, 2013 for a device and method that shortens the half-life of radioactive materials by increasing their rate of emissions. Method and Apparatus for Generating Particles, the content of which is fully incorporated by reference herein. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION The embodiments of the invention relate generally to the field of electrochemistry. Generated particles may be captured by other nuclei to create new elements, to remediate nuclear waste, to treat cancerous tumors, or to create strategic materials.
RE: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
Curious detail in all of this Navy-gravy is worth a quick mention . since we are all concerned about getting LENR to market quickly. Who would have expected that Guam, of all places, would be benefiting from this breakthrough power source? Well . Navy Base Quam and an associated airfield are strategic locations for USN - and it is doubtful that there are adequate coconut hulls to supply all the energy needs: http://www.mvguam.com/local/news/22144-clean-nuclear-power-eyed.html Kinda reminds vorticians of those contracts for grid power that BLP signed with various New Mexico Utility providers four years ago . for Mills' breakthrough power source. should I say: previous breakthrough power source? (the one following the Capstone breakthrough and preceding CIHT breakthrough, cough, cough) Wonder how BLP is progressing with those highly publicized contracts, and how much lower the electric rates are in NM these days? After all, did not Randy say he could make electricity for one cent per kWhr? Well geeze . the guy is still a veritable genius in my book, but he is more untrustworthy with his predictions than Rossi . or all the Hot Fusion advocates . oops . no, sorry. no one on this planet is more untrustworthy with predictions than the Hot Fusion establishment . From: Jones Beene Curious, that the Navy cites Mitchell Swartz's applications (and Arata) as prior art - all of which have NOT been granted, and the Navy does NOT mention the one which they flagrantly copy. We need a massive overhaul of USPTO due to extreme incompetence. US Navy or not . this patent seems to be borrowing the prior art of the Cincinnati group: Pressurized electro-hydraulic processing - It is a bit irksome that the military gets a free ride from USPTO in many cases such as this. The Cincinnati process remediated (transmuted) thorium in an electrochemical process but they gave up trying to fight the patent office. US 20030201167 A1 http://www.google.com/patents/US20030201167 It is no wonder that Mitchell is bitter over his treatment by USPTO -- when several recent WPO patents have been granted which clearly mention LENR and would have been invalidated, had Mitchell's prior applications been granted, as they should have been. Jones From: Axil https://www.google.com/patents/US8419919?dq=11/859,499 https://www.google.com/patents/US8419919?dq=11/859,499hl=ensa=Xei=A5rfUe 70HMen4AO3yIFwved=0CDYQ6AEwAA hl=ensa=Xei=A5rfUe70HMen4AO3yIFwved=0CDYQ6AEwAA This U.S. Navy patent transmutes radioactive elements into less harmful elements through a benign low energy nuclear reaction process. The patent was granted April 16, 2013 for a device and method that shortens the half-life of radioactive materials by increasing their rate of emissions. Method and Apparatus for Generating Particles, the content of which is fully incorporated by reference herein. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION The embodiments of the invention relate generally to the field of electrochemistry. Generated particles may be captured by other nuclei to create new elements, to remediate nuclear waste, to treat cancerous tumors, or to create strategic materials.
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
Re the US 20030201167 A1 patent of the Cincinnati Group: I have met Gleeson and Holloman at Asti -7, we became friends and Don has donated a Cincy Cell to me for testing, does it transmute elements or not. The cell was filled with a dilute solution of a thorium salt and HCl and after the forced high pressure electrolysis (temperature, pressure and voltage are all increasing to high limits) the solution is completely salt-free and not radioactive. However a white precipitate is formed (the two electrodes are corroded/eroded) and the radioactivity is transferred in this precipitate. What happens is based on spark erosion, small molten droplets of zirconium are capturing the salt. The global radioactivity measured for the cells, before and after electro;ysis remains unchanged Both inventors- who have later worked with Americium, have died due to leukemia. It was a tragedy- however no transmutation takes place, sorry for that. Peter On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Curious, that the Navy cites Mitchell Swartz’s applications (and Arata) as prior art – all of which have NOT been granted, and the Navy does NOT mention the one which they flagrantly copy. We need a massive overhaul of USPTO due to extreme incompetence. ** ** US Navy or not … this patent seems to be “borrowing” the prior art of the Cincinnati group: “Pressurized electro-hydraulic processing” – It is a bit irksome that the military gets a free ride from USPTO in many cases such as this. The Cincinnati process remediated (transmuted) thorium in an electrochemical process but they gave up trying to fight the patent office. US 20030201167 A1 http://www.google.com/patents/US20030201167 ** ** It is no wonder that Mitchell is bitter over his treatment by USPTO -- when several recent WPO patents have been granted which clearly mention LENR and would have been invalidated, had Mitchell’s prior applications been granted, as they should have been. ** ** Jones ** ** *From:* Axil Axil ** ** https://www.google.com/patents/US8419919?dq=11/859,499hl=ensa=Xei=A5rfUe70HMen4AO3yIFwved=0CDYQ6AEwAA This U.S. Navy patent transmutes radioactive elements into less harmful elements through a benign low energy nuclear reaction process. The patent was granted April 16, 2013 for a device and method that shortens the half-life of radioactive materials by increasing their rate of emissions.* *** “Method and Apparatus for Generating Particles,” the content of which is fully incorporated by reference herein. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION The embodiments of the invention relate generally to the field of electrochemistry. Generated particles may be captured by other nuclei to create new elements, to remediate nuclear waste, to treat cancerous tumors, or to create strategic materials. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
The Genie sounds like LENR after it's been accepted: 1. Our experiments are repeatable. 2. Our experiments have been replicated by others. 3. Our experiments provide direct evidence that nuclear reactions are involved including the production of high-energy neutrons. Although our experimental results are not predicted by current nuclear physics theories, *the results are real*. http://globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** Curious detail in all of this Navy-gravy is worth a quick mention … since we are all concerned about getting LENR to market quickly… ** ** Who would have expected that Guam, of all places, would be benefiting from this breakthrough power source? Well … Navy Base Quam and an associated airfield are strategic locations for USN - and it is doubtful that there are adequate coconut hulls to supply all the energy needs: ** ** http://www.mvguam.com/local/news/22144-clean-nuclear-power-eyed.html ** ** Kinda reminds vorticians of those contracts for grid power that BLP signed with various New Mexico Utility providers four years ago … for Mills’ breakthrough power source… should I say: previous breakthrough power source? (the one following the Capstone breakthrough and preceding CIHT breakthrough, cough, cough) ** ** Wonder how BLP is progressing with those highly publicized contracts, and how much lower the electric rates are in NM these days? After all, did not Randy say he could make electricity for one cent per kWhr? ** ** Well geeze … the guy is still a veritable genius in my book, but he is more untrustworthy with his predictions than Rossi … or all the Hot Fusion advocates … oops … no, sorry… no one on this planet is more untrustworthy with predictions than the Hot Fusion establishment . ** ** ** ** *From:* Jones Beene ** ** Curious, that the Navy cites Mitchell Swartz’s applications (and Arata) as prior art – all of which have NOT been granted, and the Navy does NOT mention the one which they flagrantly copy. We need a massive overhaul of USPTO due to extreme incompetence. ** ** US Navy or not … this patent seems to be “borrowing” the prior art of the Cincinnati group: “Pressurized electro-hydraulic processing” – It is a bit irksome that the military gets a free ride from USPTO in many cases such as this. The Cincinnati process remediated (transmuted) thorium in an electrochemical process but they gave up trying to fight the patent office. US 20030201167 A1 http://www.google.com/patents/US20030201167 ** ** It is no wonder that Mitchell is bitter over his treatment by USPTO -- when several recent WPO patents have been granted which clearly mention LENR and would have been invalidated, had Mitchell’s prior applications been granted, as they should have been. ** ** Jones ** ** *From:* Axil ** ** https://www.google.com/patents/US8419919?dq=11/859,499hl=ensa=Xei=A5rfUe70HMen4AO3yIFwved=0CDYQ6AEwAA This U.S. Navy patent transmutes radioactive elements into less harmful elements through a benign low energy nuclear reaction process. The patent was granted April 16, 2013 for a device and method that shortens the half-life of radioactive materials by increasing their rate of emissions.* *** “Method and Apparatus for Generating Particles,” the content of which is fully incorporated by reference herein. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION The embodiments of the invention relate generally to the field of electrochemistry. Generated particles may be captured by other nuclei to create new elements, to remediate nuclear waste, to treat cancerous tumors, or to create strategic materials.
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
What's interesting to me is that if this works, LENR isn't as important. The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn't rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear Reactors. The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn't required enriched uranium and it doesn't produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: The Genie sounds like LENR after it's been accepted: 1. Our experiments are repeatable. 2. Our experiments have been replicated by others. 3. Our experiments provide direct evidence that nuclear reactions are involved including the production of high-energy neutrons. Although our experimental results are not predicted by current nuclear physics theories, *the results are real*. http://globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** Curious detail in all of this Navy-gravy is worth a quick mention … since we are all concerned about getting LENR to market quickly… ** ** Who would have expected that Guam, of all places, would be benefiting from this breakthrough power source? Well … Navy Base Quam and an associated airfield are strategic locations for USN - and it is doubtful that there are adequate coconut hulls to supply all the energy needs: *** * ** ** http://www.mvguam.com/local/news/22144-clean-nuclear-power-eyed.html ** ** Kinda reminds vorticians of those contracts for grid power that BLP signed with various New Mexico Utility providers four years ago … for Mills’ breakthrough power source… should I say: previous breakthrough power source? (the one following the Capstone breakthrough and preceding CIHT breakthrough, cough, cough) ** ** Wonder how BLP is progressing with those highly publicized contracts, and how much lower the electric rates are in NM these days? After all, did not Randy say he could make electricity for one cent per kWhr? ** ** Well geeze … the guy is still a veritable genius in my book, but he is more untrustworthy with his predictions than Rossi … or all the Hot Fusion advocates … oops … no, sorry… no one on this planet is more untrustworthy with predictions than the Hot Fusion establishment . ** ** ** ** *From:* Jones Beene ** ** Curious, that the Navy cites Mitchell Swartz’s applications (and Arata) as prior art – all of which have NOT been granted, and the Navy does NOT mention the one which they flagrantly copy. We need a massive overhaul of USPTO due to extreme incompetence. ** ** US Navy or not … this patent seems to be “borrowing” the prior art of the Cincinnati group: “Pressurized electro-hydraulic processing” – It is a bit irksome that the military gets a free ride from USPTO in many cases such as this. The Cincinnati process remediated (transmuted) thorium in an electrochemical process but they gave up trying to fight the patent office. US 20030201167 A1 http://www.google.com/patents/US20030201167 ** ** It is no wonder that Mitchell is bitter over his treatment by USPTO -- when several recent WPO patents have been granted which clearly mention LENR and would have been invalidated, had Mitchell’s prior applications been granted, as they should have been. ** ** Jones ** ** *From:* Axil ** ** https://www.google.com/patents/US8419919?dq=11/859,499hl=ensa=Xei=A5rfUe70HMen4AO3yIFwved=0CDYQ6AEwAA This U.S. Navy patent transmutes radioactive elements into less harmful elements through a benign low energy nuclear reaction process. The patent was granted April 16, 2013 for a device and method that shortens the half-life of radioactive materials by increasing their rate of emissions. “Method and Apparatus for Generating Particles,” the content of which is fully incorporated by reference herein. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION The embodiments of the invention relate generally to the field of electrochemistry. Generated particles may be captured by other nuclei to create new elements, to remediate nuclear waste, to treat cancerous tumors, or to create strategic materials.
RE: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
From: Peter Gluck Both inventors- who have later worked with Americium, have died due to leukemia. It was a tragedy- however no transmutation takes place, sorry for that. Yes too bad, and your report casts doubt on the GEC implementation (unless the two died of neutron radiation unbeknownst - myeloid leukemia is a symptom of same) Other reports on the CG process have been favorable. Perhaps it gets back to the issue of unreliability. From: blaze spinnaker What's interesting to me is that if this works, LENR isn't as important. The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn't rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear Reactors. The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn't required enriched uranium and it doesn't produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. The GEC reactor, as I understand it - produces fast neutrons from LENR reactions. So it is a hybrid of the two. If that is true, then it could be very different from the Cincinnati group technology. My apologies for the confusion, assuming this is true (and that there really are fast neutrons in large enough amounts to be useful). However, if fast neutrons are being produced - they would NOT need uranium and all the baggage that goes with this element, both in terms of PR and cost. Therefore, one has to doubt the veracity of some of the information coming out. Of course, GEC could use uranium anyway on a Navy base, despite the negative features - and try to rationalize all the other objections, but no clever nuclear engineer would do so unless there was a real imperative, given that the cross-section of thorium for fast neutrons is about the same, and it is cheaper and less toxic - and there are certainly better choices than either for lower toxicity and compactness. Jones
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
Just an observation, but it looks as though the G.E.C site hasn't been updated since 2010. There's been a lot happening in the LENR field in those three short years. Where have they been? Bob On 7/12/2013 12:26 PM, blaze spinnaker wrote: The Genie sounds like LENR after it's been accepted: 1. Our experiments are repeatable. 2. Our experiments have been replicated by others. 3. Our experiments provide direct evidence that nuclear reactions are involved including the production of high-energy neutrons. Although our experimental results are not predicted by current nuclear physics theories, *the results are real*. http://globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3204/6486 - Release Date: 07/12/13
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
The advantage of using Uranium is that it's production is controlled by friendly powers (US/Canada/Australia/etc). Perhaps this was a way to get various scientifically naive but highly influential individuals on board. The GEC board of directors, Khim says, includes some well-known Washington D.C. Players, including former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, former Congressman and Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, and former U.S. Congressman Tom Davis, among others. On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Peter Gluck ** ** Both inventors- who have later worked with Americium, have died due to leukemia. It was a tragedy- however no transmutation takes place, sorry for that. ** ** Yes too bad, and your report casts doubt on the GEC implementation (unless the two died of neutron radiation unbeknownst - myeloid leukemia is a symptom of same) ** ** Other reports on the CG process have been favorable. Perhaps it gets back to the issue of unreliability. ** ** *From*: blaze spinnaker ** ** What's interesting to me is that if this works, LENR isn't as important… The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn't rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear Reactors. The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn't required enriched uranium and it doesn't produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. ** ** The GEC reactor, as I understand it – produces fast neutrons from LENR reactions. So it is a hybrid of the two. ** ** If that is true, then it could be very different from the Cincinnati group technology. My apologies for the confusion, assuming this is true (and that there really are fast neutrons in large enough amounts to be useful). ** ** However, if fast neutrons are being produced - they would NOT need uranium and all the baggage that goes with this element, both in terms of PR and cost. Therefore, one has to doubt the veracity of some of the information coming out. ** ** Of course, GEC could use uranium anyway on a Navy base, despite the negative features - and try to rationalize all the other objections, but no clever nuclear engineer would do so unless there was a real imperative, given that the cross-section of thorium for fast neutrons is about the same, and it is cheaper and less toxic - and there are certainly better choices than either for lower toxicity and compactness. ** ** Jones ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
Maybe by the time Navy's patent was filed in, the others were still not analyzed. 2013/7/12 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Curious, that the Navy cites Mitchell Swartz’s applications (and Arata) as prior art – all of which have NOT been granted,** ** -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
However, if fast neutrons are being produced - they would NOT need uranium and all the baggage that goes with this element, both in terms of PR and cost. Therefore, one has to doubt the veracity of some of the information coming out. ** ** Interesting patent: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009108331recNum=1maxRec=office=prevFilter=sortOption=queryString=tab=PCTDescription They're referring this patent as their Neutron generator: http://www.google.com/patents/US8419919
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn't required enriched uranium and it doesn't produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. One problem with neutrons is that we want fewer of them in the world, not more of them. This is in part because of uranium. If you take 238U, the most common isotope (e.g., used in depleted uranium armor) and you add a neutron, it will beta decay twice into fissile plutonium. Eric
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
Dear Jones How is connected GENIE with the Cincy Cell- in your opinion? Americium per se is very dangerous, see please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americium#Health_issues Peter On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Peter Gluck ** ** Both inventors- who have later worked with Americium, have died due to leukemia. It was a tragedy- however no transmutation takes place, sorry for that. ** ** Yes too bad, and your report casts doubt on the GEC implementation (unless the two died of neutron radiation unbeknownst - myeloid leukemia is a symptom of same) ** ** Other reports on the CG process have been favorable. Perhaps it gets back to the issue of unreliability. ** ** *From*: blaze spinnaker ** ** What's interesting to me is that if this works, LENR isn't as important… The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn't rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear Reactors. The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn't required enriched uranium and it doesn't produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. ** ** The GEC reactor, as I understand it – produces fast neutrons from LENR reactions. So it is a hybrid of the two. ** ** If that is true, then it could be very different from the Cincinnati group technology. My apologies for the confusion, assuming this is true (and that there really are fast neutrons in large enough amounts to be useful). ** ** However, if fast neutrons are being produced - they would NOT need uranium and all the baggage that goes with this element, both in terms of PR and cost. Therefore, one has to doubt the veracity of some of the information coming out. ** ** Of course, GEC could use uranium anyway on a Navy base, despite the negative features - and try to rationalize all the other objections, but no clever nuclear engineer would do so unless there was a real imperative, given that the cross-section of thorium for fast neutrons is about the same, and it is cheaper and less toxic - and there are certainly better choices than either for lower toxicity and compactness. ** ** Jones ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn't required enriched uranium and it doesn't produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. One problem with neutrons is that we want fewer of them in the world, not more of them. This is in part because of uranium. If you take 238U, the most common isotope (e.g., used in depleted uranium armor) and you add a neutron, it will beta decay twice into fissile plutonium. Eric Hopefully that'll get consumed too! Genie looks kinda like MYRRHA (http://www.siler.eu/public/DeBruyn.pdf) but instead of using a particle accelerator for neutron generation, it uses the OP's patent.
