no need of a total theory to control a complex system.
and even with a total theory about a mechanisme, the real system is often
very different, much complex and simple that the predicted system.
the engineer method is to learn the characteristic of the system, upfront
(eg: pulse response) and
One of the characteristic of moder reactors like EPR (Areva) is that they
can self cool without external energy.
one thing missing were sand filters, that are installed in french
powerplant by the demand of a stubborn engineer that lobby for that
desperate mitigation system.
people were moaning
just to note that Rossi just answered with the kind of control he use...
- have you built a mathematical model of your reactor above 260°C?
*- which control method are you using for your reactor? (PI/PID/MPC) *
- what is the length of the control horizon of an industrial ecat?
Google car for NASCAR
http://www.nascar.com/video/none/none/120331/cup-mar-google/
mic
If you can figure out why money is going down this rat-hole:
http://costofwar.com/en/
at a rate of $14 million per hour, perhaps can start to understand the true
dimensions of the mystery.
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.comwrote:
this interview with
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:05:48 -0500, James Bowery wrote:
So what do you guys think?
Why has Brillouin such difficulties to collect 6 million?
Maybe the vortex-crowd should put their money where their mouth is,
and invest.
(suppressing my Homerian laughter.)
As long as LENR can't be patented
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:05 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
If you can figure out why money is going down this rat-hole:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military
industrial complex. The
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Robert McKay rob...@mckay.com wrote:
As long as LENR can't be patented there is no way for it to be really
profitable.
Not true. Not all countries ban LENR patents. Even one country would be
more than enough to make the return on investment mind-blowing.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:05 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
If you can figure out why money is going down this rat-hole:
...*Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry* can compel the proper
meshing of the
I am not saying that Fukushima was not a big and horrible disaster, but
things must be seen in perspective.
There is no greater tragedy in human history as coal.
Fukushima is a footnote in history of disasters compared to coal. And yet,
people go making much more fuss about nuclear powerplants
I meant there is no greater tragedy in human history, in pursuit of
energy, as coal.
Em 2 de abril de 2012 11:26, Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com escreveu:
I am not saying that Fukushima was not a big and horrible disaster, but
things must be seen in perspective.
There is no greater
From: Bruno Santos
As if it is not enough, coal ash is radioactive. As a
matter of a fact, it pollutes the environment with much more radiation than
nuclear plants waste does.
like in computer science in the old time,
you can make much cash on an innovative domain without patent.
there is many things to innovate in LENR.
if there is no protection, you will be copied in in a few semesters, but
you can make cash.
then you innovate for next semester.
maybe is it the idea
This page from june 2011 already quotes the 6-30 COP and Xanthi factory.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/defkalion-green-technologies-new.html
Andre
On 03/30/2012 06:53 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
Hi,
someone cite me todays products page of defkalion,
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/products
thanks, that is the data I needed to answer.
2012/4/2 Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl
This page from june 2011 already quotes the 6-30 COP and Xanthi factory.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/defkalion-green-technologies-new.html
Andre
On 03/30/2012 06:53 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
Hi,
Assuming no commercial LENR:
Frakking does buy us a lot of time, probably well over 100 years.
Trucks, Planes, Trains and Ships could all switch to natural gas for
fuel, and even cars will swap over if oil gets too expensive. We can
also make liquid fuels out of natural gas (GTL), at current gas
You have presented a pretty good discussion of the methods of control and it
will be useful for all of us to give the techniques serious consideration. My
concern is not in controlling that which is currently available, but to derive
the best possible system to control. There are numerous
The best way I can think of to get a prototype of the one system that will
enable star travel a few hundred years or so, would be to draw-up a proposal
and/or contract with NASA. About 10yrs ago, NASA had developed a motor or
rotor that could maintain a rate of 60,000 Rpm's (1,000 Rps's), and
I have been hit over the head on more than one occasion when thinking about COP
and have come to some interesting observations.
The most important factor is the Carnot efficiency of the potential heat engine
that can be driven by the heat output of the LENR device. The Carnot
efficiency is
Alain Sepeda wrote:
One of the characteristic of moder reactors like EPR (Areva) is that
they can self cool without external energy.
Sure. There are several designs that use passive cooling. The pebble bed
reactor is another example. But none have been commercialized yet. The
designs are
Von: lorenhe...@aol.com lorenhe...@aol.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 19:25 Montag, 2.April 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Advanced Theory of Energy/Being
The best way I can think of to get a prototype of the one system that will
enable star travel a few
Von: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 20:17 Montag, 2.April 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Question about Defkalion products page
The most important factor is the Carnot efficiency of the potential heat
engine that can be driven
No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than nuclear
power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining pollution.
Anyone who believes that global warming is real will certainly agree that
nuclear power is safer even factoring the Chernobyl and Fukushima
accidents.
I wrote:
The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 billion, which is
roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost.
As Greenpeace pointed out, by coincidence this is roughly the cost of the
2008 TARP bailout. Note however, that nearly all of the TARP money was
returned the
FYI:
The EPR is equipped with what Areva refers to as a “core catcher.” If the
fuel cladding and reactor vessel systems and associated piping become
molten, these first two safety mechanisms the molten core will fall into a
core catcher which holds the molten material and has the ability to cool
*Putting aside the long term perspective, nuclear power is uniquely
disastrous from an economic and business point of view. No other source of
energy could conceivably cause so much damage in a single accident, or cost
even a small fraction as much money. As I said, this accident bankrupted
the
Von:Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 22:02 Montag, 2.April 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than
nuclear power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining
pollution.
It will be horrendously expensive, but I would like to think that as smart
as the Japanese are, they will come up with some creative solutions to
mitigate the cost - and maybe ultimately it won't be as expensive as
currently imagined. My parents told me that when they visited Nagasaki
and
Maybe the best long term answer for nuclear is to put reactors in large
barges or on platforms 10's-100's of miles off-shore. While they would be
more vulnerable to the elements they would not threaten any land.
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
*Putting aside the long term perspective, .. .*
You can’t dismiss the long term perspective.
No, you can't, but I just did. My sentence begins putting aside the long
term perspective meaning let's not talk about the future for a moment
here; let's look
Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe the best long term answer for nuclear is to put reactors in large
barges or on platforms 10's-100's of miles off-shore.
That seems like a bad idea to me. A rogue wave or a storm at sea can
capsize or break apart any ship, including the
It is also important to notice that japanese government overlooked serious
issues with the Fukushima power plant. The plant cooling design was not
optimal and they knew it.
The japanese government must be held responsible for the disaster as much
as TEPCO.
Accidents happen, but this was no
Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com wrote:
The japanese government must be held responsible for the disaster as much
as TEPCO.
It is a little difficult to know what you can do to a government. Vote them
out of office? The people who authorized this plant retired and died long
ago.
If a Spaceplane was equipped with 3-ea Light Energy Systems, that could
produce a combined TPF equal to that of the EVW, the Spaceplane could
accelerate down the runway at a fairly good rate. It would obviously be
advantageous if the TPF was at least double the EVW, because then you'd be
Yeah, I've seen all the episodes, just recently over the past year or so,
but especially when I was only 7 or 8 yrs old, some 50 yrs ago. At that age
I was mostly scared half outta my wits by alot of that stuff, but it also
inspired me to persue the reality of how this civilization has been
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2012/04/breakthrough-in-free-energy-b-cat.html
Yesterday's news, but quite good. Be sure to check out the 1MW movie.
(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the
defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)
Where do you keep getting this $600 billion dollar number? Most of the sources
I've seen say it's around $50 billion. And Tepco is the 4th largest electric
utility in the world, not the 1st. Adding Chernobyl to nuclear's safety record
is unfair. Chernobyl just showed what can happen to a
Greenpeace is not a credible source.
On Apr 2, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 billion, which is
roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost.
As Greenpeace pointed out, by coincidence this is roughly the cost of
If we decide to get rid of nuclear and coal in favor of wind and solar, a
millions of people will die of starvation. Our GDP would decrease by half.
I'd rather take a risk that a nuclear reactor explodes or a coal mine
collapses than the alternative.
On Apr 2, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Jed
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:17:19 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far
above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building.
I suggest building the entire reactor on the sea floor off shore.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.comwrote:
Where do you keep getting this $600 billion dollar number?
The Japanese mass media, NHK, and The Japan Center for Economic Research.
See:
http://www.jcer.or.jp/eng/research/pdf/pe(iwata20110425)e.pdf
This shows 20
Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote:
If we decide to get rid of nuclear and coal in favor of wind and solar, a
millions of people will die of starvation. Our GDP would decrease by half.
This is nonsense. Five states in the U.S. alone have more potential wind
energy than the energy
Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote:
Greenpeace is not a credible source.
That is true. Greenpeace gets most of the numbers in the report from
official source in the Japanese government and TEPCO. These are not
credible sources -- as you say -- but there are not many independent
As long as LENR can't be patented there is no way for it to be really
profitable. Three weeks after someone comes out with a working device the
e-cat will be out of the bag and you'll have dealextreme.com selling
disposable LENR devices for $10.00 inc delivery. While I'm sure a few
million
It would be nice to see them all funded to the
$50-100 million level for a few years to see if one or more of them
looks promising enough to carry on with
1/ Field Reversed Configuration - eg Helion Energy, Tri Alpha
2/ Electrostatic Confinement - eg Polywell/EMC2
3/ Magnetised Target
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Without moral hazard, there is no way for a party to be motivated to
change his behavior, improve his design, or pay for any damage caused.
I think you have moral hazard exactly backwards. Moral hazard is a bad
thing -- it's
Both underwater and underground deployment of nuclear plants is ideal for
certain types of nuclear designs that are totally passively controlled.
This design is old and venerable. Being greatly concerned about nuclear
safety, the last paper that Dr. Edward Teller (designed the H bomb) wrote
The National Ignition Facility is only one of a number of projects used by
the DOD to ensure that their H bombs explode when they want them to. Fusion
research is just a PR thing.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be nice to see them all
48 matches
Mail list logo
