If existing nuclear emerging theory were valid, the Chernobyl catastrophe should not have happened. Some factor outside of known nuclear engineering principles increased the reactivity of the core of the reactor. One possibility; electric discharge during a test could have push the reactor into supercriticality.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/nucl-ex/papers/0304/0304024.pdf Quote The official conclusion about the origin and mechanism of the Chernobyl catastrophe is shown to essentially contradict experimental facts available from the accident. In the frame of existing physical models of nuclear fission reactor, it is shown analytically that under conditions of the accident the period of runaway of reactor at the fourth power generating unit of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (CNPP) should be either 10 times slower or 100 times faster than that observed. A self-consistent hypothesis is suggested for the probable birth of magnetic charges, during the turbine generator test under it’s own momentum test, at the fourth power generating unit of CNPP, and for the impact of these charges on the reactivity coefficient. Quote EXPERIMENTS ON STUDYING THE MAGNETIC MONOPOLE Apart from the neutron mechanism, other mechanisms of uranium fission are also known to exist, for example, fission induced by slow muons [24]. . The mechanism of uranium fission under the action of magnetic monopoles has been considered theoretically [25]. It was suggested [25] that the monopole-nuclear interaction is so strong that a monopole that comes close to a nucleus can induce 238U fission. To explain the experimentally observed facts, the formation of magnetic monopoles during a current interruption caused by electric discharge on a metallic foil in a fluid has been proposed as a working hypothesis [9]. In the authors’ opinion, this hypothesis provides an explanation for the abnormal tracks recorded using nuclear emulsions, for the observed nuclear transformation, and for the shift of 57Fe Mossbauer spectra. In order to confirm the hypothesized formation of monopoles, experiments on detection of the 238U fission induced by magnetic monopoles were carried out [26]. These experiments established that the original isotopic composition of uranium has changed towards 235U under the action of a *“strange” radiation*. The decrease in the specific activity of uranium upon the electric discharge on a metallic foil noted in [26] is, most likely, related to the transformation of uranium nuclei. However, the fact that the monopoles predicted previously [6, 7] are leptons suggests that they should influence markedly the β- decay. Substantial distortions of the β-decay periods for the isomeric 234mTh nuclei, which are daughter products of 238U, were detected in experiments [26]. Thus, the experiments provided crucial arguments in favor of the existence of magnetic monopoles and substantial support for the hypotheses stated previously [9]. Let us assume that magnetic monopoles have entered the RBMK reactor and find out what would be the consequences, relying on the results of [9, 26]. I beleive that the monopoles that are described above are formed from ultra dense water produced by cavitation generated by electrical explosion in water. Yes, existing nuclear theory shows that the experiment at Chernobyl should have been safe. "Apart from the neutron mechanism, other mechanisms of uranium fission are also known to exist, for example, fission induced by slow muons" However, LENR catalyzed by electrical discharge produced slow negative muons as indicated in subsequent experiments by Urutskoev and now by Holmlid. These muons produced a supercritical condition in the reaction that neutrons alone could not account for Its ironic, but LENR produced the biggest disaster in the history of nuclear energy: chernobyl. A short in one of the generators at that reactor produced two huge electrical discharges that in turn produced a huge muons flux that when added to the neutron flux in the #4 reactor, put that reactor into a supercritical state. As explained above, muons and transuranic elements don't mix. Rossi shielded his early reactors with lead but it must have been confusing to him that the more lead that he used, the more radiation that he saw. He does not use any shielding now and with his latest unshielded reactor, all the radiation when away. Nobody has asked Rossi why he does not use radiation shielding anymore. Heavy elements convert slow muons into ionizing radiation and neutrons via muon catalyzed fusion. In short, the reaction cross section for muons with uranium or lead is millions of time greater than it is with hydrogen. On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Bob Higgins wrote: > > What about the waste products from a hybrid fusion-fission reactor using >> natural U fuel? Would the neutron source drive the fission products to be >> either stable elements or to radioisotopes with shorter half life? >> > > Not with small (desktop) accelerators as the basis of a makeup-neutron > generator. That is asking too much. There needs to be a high multiplication > ratio which limits the excess. > > Basically, there are too few neutrons to spare and maintain instant > shut-down capability. The idea is to have "just enough" flux, so that > reactor goes into shut-down immediately on loss of accelerator power. No > control rods. However, because a proper design would have a much reduced > neutron flux to begin with (an order of magnitude less) the refueling time > is greatly extended and may never be needed. > > Thus, the inventory of U per watt is high, but comparatively - when you > include enrichment losses necessary for the LWR the lifetime usage of U per > watt is half as much with natural U, and without reprocessing - resulting > in fuel cost which is one fourth - since operators pay a premium for > enrichment. > >> >> What about using LENR as the neutron source? Some LENR fuels are reputed >> to cause "undesirable" neutron emission. Suppose that were harnessed. >> > > Researching that possibility is one reason why I joined vortex back in the > previous century but the question remains unanswered - unless you have an > ace up your sleeve. What LENR fuels produce copious neutrons? Certainly a > hybrid reactor with natural U would be a prime market. Remember that Miley, > who used to know more about this than anyone, built his neutron generator > around a Fusor... not exactly LENR. > >
