RE: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

No.



I meant fast neutrons.  Without the water there will be only a spectrum of fast 
neutrons.  Add water and the reactor will go critical just as it would if rods 
were pulled.



FRC



Sent from Mail for Windows 10




From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 3:51:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2019 20:57:40
+:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
>As suggested, steam would reduce the flux of thermalized neutrons in the 
>reactor and shut it down.  To maintain criticality, reactivity would need to 
>be added, probably by the movement of control rods to increase the flux of 
>fast neutrons upon which criticality depended.

Did you mean "...to increase the flux of [slow] neutrons"?

>Control systems, including the mechanical portion of the system for insertion 
>of negative reactivity—the control rods, need to be very fast to avoid super 
>critical conditions.

I think that would only be true is the feedback were positive, however negative
feedback is by definition self-regulating. IOW a power increase leads to more
boiling reducing the slow neutron flux and therefore slowing the reactor down
again. Inversely, a power decrease reduces the number & size of steam bubbles,
resulting in more moderation, and an increase in thermal neutron triggered
fission events and the power increases. IOW a boiling water reactor would be
self-regulating and tend to stabilize at a fixed power level. The actual level
at which it stabilized could be regulated by control rods, the degree of
insertion thereof determining the current stable power level. Of course the
maximum power level would be determined by the overall size of the reactor and
the concentration of fuel nuclei in the solution.

Radiolysis is a potential problem, though I think that can largely be overcome
by using recombiners. Note that bubbles created by radiolysis have the same
negative feedback characteristic that steam bubbles have.

> The design of fast control systems with high reliability is a problem IMHO 
> given the complex analysis associated with knowing the local variety of 
> materials at any given place.
>
>
>
>The “nice” thing  (RELATIVELY SPEAKING) about normal fission reactors is the 
>reliable knowledge of the location of the various isotopes in a dynamic 
>reactor with pressure, temperature and dimensional change occurring rapidly.
>
I think such variability "might" be reduced to acceptable levels by pumping the
working fluid through a many densely packed parallel tubes in the reactor core,
rather than having it is a single large container.

Individual tubes tend to minimize convection currents, especially if they run
horizontally. A rapid fluid flow also helps.

Control rods can be inserted between the tubes, and parallel with them.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Without water—lost in the steam production—the negative temperature coeff.  Is 
diminished or lost completely.



The rate at which reactivity is added to the reactor is important in startup to 
avoid super criticality and an uncontrolled –run-away—reaction.  Any positive 
temperature coeff.  resulting in an increase in fast neutron flux is 
unacceptable and needs to be avoided.   Loss of liquid water would be a problem 
if it happened fast and added reactivity and loss of the negative temperature 
coeff.



Bob Cook







































Bob Cook



Sent from Mail for Windows 10




From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 3:51:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2019 20:57:40
+:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
>As suggested, steam would reduce the flux of thermalized neutrons in the 
>reactor and shut it down.  To maintain criticality, reactivity would need to 
>be added, probably by the movement of control rods to increase the flux of 
>fast neutrons upon which criticality depended.

Did you mean "...to increase the flux of [slow] neutrons"?

>Control systems, including the mechanical portion of the system for insertion 
>of negative reactivity—the control rods, need to be very fast to avoid super 
>critical conditions.

I think that would only be true is the feedback were positive, however negative
feedback is by definition self-regulating. IOW a power increase leads to more
boiling reducing the slow neutron flux and therefore slowing the reactor down
again. Inversely, a power decrease reduces the number & size of steam bubbles,
resulting in more moderation, and an increase in thermal neutron triggered
fission events and the power increases. IOW a boiling water reactor would be
self-regulating and tend to stabilize at a fixed power level. The actual level
at which it stabilized could be regulated by control rods, the degree of
insertion thereof determining the current stable power level. Of course the
maximum power level would be determined by the overall size of the reactor and
the concentration of fuel nuclei in the solution.

Radiolysis is a potential problem, though I think that can largely be overcome
by using recombiners. Note that bubbles created by radiolysis have the same
negative feedback characteristic that steam bubbles have.

> The design of fast control systems with high reliability is a problem IMHO 
> given the complex analysis associated with knowing the local variety of 
> materials at any given place.
>
>
>
>The “nice” thing  (RELATIVELY SPEAKING) about normal fission reactors is the 
>reliable knowledge of the location of the various isotopes in a dynamic 
>reactor with pressure, temperature and dimensional change occurring rapidly.
>
I think such variability "might" be reduced to acceptable levels by pumping the
working fluid through a many densely packed parallel tubes in the reactor core,
rather than having it is a single large container.

Individual tubes tend to minimize convection currents, especially if they run
horizontally. A rapid fluid flow also helps.

Control rods can be inserted between the tubes, and parallel with them.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

[mixent]

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2019 20:57:40
+:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
>As suggested, steam would reduce the flux of thermalized neutrons in the 
>reactor and shut it down.  To maintain criticality, reactivity would need to 
>be added, probably by the movement of control rods to increase the flux of 
>fast neutrons upon which criticality depended.  

Did you mean "...to increase the flux of [slow] neutrons"?

>Control systems, including the mechanical portion of the system for insertion 
>of negative reactivity—the control rods, need to be very fast to avoid super 
>critical conditions. 

I think that would only be true is the feedback were positive, however negative
feedback is by definition self-regulating. IOW a power increase leads to more
boiling reducing the slow neutron flux and therefore slowing the reactor down
again. Inversely, a power decrease reduces the number & size of steam bubbles,
resulting in more moderation, and an increase in thermal neutron triggered
fission events and the power increases. IOW a boiling water reactor would be
self-regulating and tend to stabilize at a fixed power level. The actual level
at which it stabilized could be regulated by control rods, the degree of
insertion thereof determining the current stable power level. Of course the
maximum power level would be determined by the overall size of the reactor and
the concentration of fuel nuclei in the solution.

Radiolysis is a potential problem, though I think that can largely be overcome
by using recombiners. Note that bubbles created by radiolysis have the same
negative feedback characteristic that steam bubbles have.

> The design of fast control systems with high reliability is a problem IMHO 
> given the complex analysis associated with knowing the local variety of 
> materials at any given place.
>
>
>
>The “nice” thing  (RELATIVELY SPEAKING) about normal fission reactors is the 
>reliable knowledge of the location of the various isotopes in a dynamic 
>reactor with pressure, temperature and dimensional change occurring rapidly.
>
I think such variability "might" be reduced to acceptable levels by pumping the
working fluid through a many densely packed parallel tubes in the reactor core,
rather than having it is a single large container.

Individual tubes tend to minimize convection currents, especially if they run
horizontally. A rapid fluid flow also helps.

Control rods can be inserted between the tubes, and parallel with them.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

As suggested, steam would reduce the flux of thermalized neutrons in the 
reactor and shut it down.  To maintain criticality, reactivity would need to be 
added, probably by the movement of control rods to increase the flux of fast 
neutrons upon which criticality depended.  Control systems, including the 
mechanical portion of the system for insertion of negative reactivity—the 
control rods, need to be very fast to avoid super critical conditions.  The 
design of fast control systems with high reliability is a problem IMHO given 
the complex analysis associated with knowing the local variety of materials at 
any given place.



The “nice” thing  (RELATIVELY SPEAKING) about normal fission reactors is the 
reliable knowledge of the location of the various isotopes in a dynamic reactor 
with pressure, temperature and dimensional change occurring rapidly.



Bob Cook






From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 12:34:22 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2019 06:42:54 -0700:
Hi Jones,
[snip]
>Robin,
>
>On first glance, one obvious thermodynamic  problem is steam – in that every 
>fission fragment capable of knocking off a neutron is also able to boil off 
>several hundred million molecules of heavy water in the process of  
>thermalizing.

As you can see, from the second message I posted in this thread, this type of
reactor was in fact among the first reactors ever built. They do work.

Furthermore, I think steam production would probably be a negative feedback
mechanism which helps control the reactor. I.e. steam bubbles are less dense,
which reduces the amount of moderation available between nuclei, resulting in
faster neutrons with a lower fission cross-section. That means that steam
formation reduces the power generated and results in a self stabilizing reactor.

In fact they (google AHR), were known to be very easy to control, see the second
message I posted.
See also http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/tilghman2/

There were corrosion problems when uranyl sulphate was used, but these were
largely overcome when they switched to uranyl nitrate in a stainless-steal
vessel. I suspect that corrosion could be further reduced by lining the metal
parts with teflon.

However what I was really wondering is whether or not fission fragments can
contribute significantly to the neutron efficiency by splitting D nuclei, in a
heavy water base? I'm guessing they do, because the AHR is known for a high
neutron flux, which would appear to make it a reasonable choice for a thorium
based breeder.

>
> Consequently maintaining a liquid state with uniformly  dissolved salt 
> becomes impossible even under high pressure.. A molten salt would be feasible 
> but not a dissolved salt in the liquid state.
>
>
>
>
>? Please see http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Thorium_breeder_in_solution.html
>
>Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
>
>
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:Longitudinal, scalar, spin and Seebeck waves.

[Jones Beene]

There is known phenomenon in physics called the "longitudinal spin Seebeck 
effect". The leading paper seems to be from Uchida :
 
 Observation of longitudinal spin-Seebeck effect in magnetic insulators   
  Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 172505 (2010); 
 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3507386

The carrier of spin for this effect is the magnon. There is pronounced heat 
transfer but no violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

This is not exactly the same thing as the so-called scalar wave, which is high 
on the bogosity index. Seehttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scalar_wave
The lore in alternative energy going back to Tesla involves the scalar wave. 
Sometimes this wave can manifest as having a temperature gradient and has been 
called "cold electricity" but it is a mistake to conflate the two main 
concepts: the scalar wave and the longitudinal spin Seebeck effect - although 
there does seem to be plenty of overlap.

Then -- we start to bridge the gap between standard physics and crank free 
energy inventors with ANE. 

The "anomalous Nernst effect" (ANE) is a thermo-magnetic effect that describes 
the the interplay between heat, spin, and charge in magnets and coils. Compared 
to the standard Seebeck effect, the ANE reputedly has higher-efficiency, 
leading  to energy-harvesting devices which can convert ambient heat directly 
into electrical current in a longitudinal vector. In fact, ANE and LSSE are 
probably different aspects of the same phenomenon.

This post is intended simply to put these terms out there for future reference, 
since there are already devices out there which convert tiny amounts of ambient 
heat into tiny amounts of electrical current.
The big challenge - as always with any device rooted in QM, is quite simple. 
Does it SCALE-UP ? 

Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

[mixent]

In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2019 06:42:54 -0700:
Hi Jones,
[snip]
>Robin,
>
>On first glance, one obvious thermodynamic  problem is steam – in that every 
>fission fragment capable of knocking off a neutron is also able to boil off 
>several hundred million molecules of heavy water in the process of  
>thermalizing. 

As you can see, from the second message I posted in this thread, this type of
reactor was in fact among the first reactors ever built. They do work.

Furthermore, I think steam production would probably be a negative feedback
mechanism which helps control the reactor. I.e. steam bubbles are less dense,
which reduces the amount of moderation available between nuclei, resulting in
faster neutrons with a lower fission cross-section. That means that steam
formation reduces the power generated and results in a self stabilizing reactor.

In fact they (google AHR), were known to be very easy to control, see the second
message I posted.
See also http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/tilghman2/

There were corrosion problems when uranyl sulphate was used, but these were
largely overcome when they switched to uranyl nitrate in a stainless-steal
vessel. I suspect that corrosion could be further reduced by lining the metal
parts with teflon.

However what I was really wondering is whether or not fission fragments can
contribute significantly to the neutron efficiency by splitting D nuclei, in a
heavy water base? I'm guessing they do, because the AHR is known for a high
neutron flux, which would appear to make it a reasonable choice for a thorium
based breeder.

>
> Consequently maintaining a liquid state with uniformly  dissolved salt 
> becomes impossible even under high pressure.. A molten salt would be feasible 
> but not a dissolved salt in the liquid state.
>
>
>
>
>? Please see http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Thorium_breeder_in_solution.html
>
>Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
>
>
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Liquid salt is a bad idea for fissioin reactors IMHO.   When it cools it 
becomes a solid and needs some heating to bring it back to a liquid.  In 
general it does not afford good corrosion protection to reactor containment 
materials—like metal alloys---and is a difficult waste product to manage, 
assuming fission products remain associated/entrained.  Reactor maintenance is 
nearly impossible.It’s very costly compared to a reactor with  water as its 
coolant and neutron moderator.

Bob Cook

From: JonesBeene
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 6:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

Robin,

On first glance, one obvious thermodynamic  problem is steam – in that every 
fission fragment capable of knocking off a neutron is also able to boil off 
several hundred million molecules of heavy water in the process of  
thermalizing.

Consequently maintaining a liquid state with uniformly  dissolved salt becomes 
impossible even under high pressure.. A molten salt would be feasible but not a 
dissolved salt in the liquid state.





  *   Please see http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Thorium_breeder_in_solution.html

Regards, Robin van Spaandonk

FW: [Vo]:Re: More work on the proxmity wave antenna

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

FRANK—

The lumber may be treated with an organic salt with some metal attached to the 
organic part to prevent molds and fungus attachment to the lumber and 
constitute a an electrical conductor.

Bob Cook

--


From: Frank Znidarsic 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 7:10:24 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: More work on the proxmity wave antenna

Picture of the antenna, vertically polaried and pointed to a tower on the next 
mountain.I used a non constructing grade treated lumber for the post.  It 
was not green,  I dont know what that means.  The things your learn while doing 
things actively.


http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/antenna.jpg

RE: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

[JonesBeene]

Robin,

On first glance, one obvious thermodynamic  problem is steam – in that every 
fission fragment capable of knocking off a neutron is also able to boil off 
several hundred million molecules of heavy water in the process of  
thermalizing. 

 Consequently maintaining a liquid state with uniformly  dissolved salt becomes 
impossible even under high pressure.. A molten salt would be feasible but not a 
dissolved salt in the liquid state.




➢ Please see http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Thorium_breeder_in_solution.html

Regards, Robin van Spaandonk

Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

[mixent]

In reply to  mix...@bigpond.com's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:49:17 +1000:
Hi,
[snip]

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueous_homogeneous_reactor

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success