Re: [Vo]:Re: DoE Funds Two Advanced Nuclear Programs

http://www.tmia.com/old-website/pebbles.html *"There was a pebble bed reactor accident at Hamm-Uentrop West Germany nine days after the Chernobyl accident. On May 4 1986, a pebble became lodged in a feeder tube. Operators subsequently caused damage to the fuel during attempts to free the

[Vo]:Re: DoE Funds Two Advanced Nuclear Programs

Eric-- Your are right. fuel waste is shared by all fission reactor designs. The problem is that there was and is inadequate attention that fuel cycle design issue. Governments around the world have been working on that issue for about 60 years. There is not a good solution that’s within

[Vo]:Re: DoE Funds Two Advanced Nuclear Programs

One problem of pebbles in a reactor is that they are not welded into place. Long-lived pebbles are hard to make stay in one place with pneumatic forces from He flow and thermal transitions, expansion from pebble internal pressures and other loadings in a reactor. They do not hold radioactive

Re: [Vo]:Re: DoE Funds Two Advanced Nuclear Programs

Am I mistaken in thinking that the disposal of fuel waste is an issue that is shared by all fission reactor designs? It seems to me that after Fukushima, passive safety and simplicity of design are no-brainers for fission power. Perhaps the pebble-bed reactor has critical issues. I wonder how

Re: [Vo]:Re: DoE Funds Two Advanced Nuclear Programs

The pebbles multiply the amount of nuclear waste by at least 1000 times because of all the carbon used in the pebbles. On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > Am I mistaken in thinking that the disposal of fuel waste is an issue that > is shared by all

Re: [Vo]:DoE Funds Two Advanced Nuclear Programs

Pebble bed reactors have many unresolved problems. A pebble bed reactor was the cause that persuaded the German population to ban nuclear power from that country. On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Bob Cook

Re: [Vo]:My rejected submission to physicsforum cached by google

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:49 PM, wrote: > Hi Hamdi, > > They are obviously trying to keep out the crackpots. However what they are > apparently too short sighted to see, is that all breakthroughs are done by > "crackpots", at least until they are proven correct, at which

Re: [Vo]:DoE Funds Two Advanced Nuclear Programs

Dear Mats, Does DOE- as well as the 39 bilionairs and many other investors even take in consideration LENR? Perhaps this can change if the 1MW results of Rosssi and IH will be good (high COP) and communicated fast and correctly. Not stopping and then starting long calculations- when it is obvious

[Vo]:DoE Funds Two Advanced Nuclear Programs

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/545586/energy-department-funds-two-advanced-nuclear-programs/

[Vo]:more about LENR reframing

Thanks for the help! More needed- I really do not want to see LENR in a "Change or perish! situation. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/01/jan-22-2016-readers-about-lenr-reframing.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Ice-like phonons in liquid water discovered

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160119151516.htm

[Vo]:Towards Triple Coherency

I've changed the subject line of this thread to accommodate a new focus - which is towards the design of a specialty reactor to manufacture dense deuterium. This reactor would be designed for a single purpose of UDD formation - and avoids fusion or expansion of the end-product. It makes sense to

[Vo]:Re: DoE Funds Two Advanced Nuclear Programs

Mats and Peter-- It’s the old story of the government with public monies keeping their friends in industry afloat for a little while longer. Some call it buying a dead horse. After all the horse is still breathing, even though he is bloated, 35 years old with two broken legs. Moniz and his

[Vo]:Re: Nuclear Isomers (2005 article in Nature)

Harry-- An additional thought-- What would happen if one were to have a different batch of metastable isomers, like radioactive isotopes, that are subject to stimulated decay with tuned EM radiation. That might give a real gamma ray laser, or at least a gamma (if nuclear origin) x-ray laser.

Re: [Vo]:DoE Funds Two Advanced Nuclear Programs

X-Energy is a pebble bed reactor designer. Their web page indicates what they are doing, including designing small modular reactors that are affordable. That one thing they are doing right. They say they are correcting bad designs of the past and learning from those mistakes. X-Energy seems

[Vo]:Sitchin may have been right after all... Rogue planet very likely.

And with very similar characteristics to Sitchin's description. >From what I remember, Zecharia Sitchin proposed the rogue planet was captured by our sun long ago, was large and had an extremely elliptical orbit with a period of 3600 yrs. This planet, Nibiru, was a key part of the cosmologies of

Re: [Vo]:DoE Funds Two Advanced Nuclear Programs

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Bob Cook wrote: X-Energy is a pebble bed reactor designer. > As I read about pebble bed reactors, the approach seems fundamentally more sane than current reactor designs, which appear to have low tolerances for error and catastrophic