Jack,
Yes, you use a PWM signal and convert it in to an AC signal. For example
when PWM is 1, then it's + current, or if PWM is 0, then it's - current.
But if I understand, you need also a Zero current state as well. In this
case, the Power part of the schematic does not change. You keep
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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.
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,
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
“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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:33:49 +1100:
Hi,
[snip]
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.
[snip]
BTW with regard
53 matches
Mail list logo
