Bush/Eagleton did a paper in "Fusion Technology" in the mid nineties, with a comparison that looked better in terms of power density (as opposed to net energy) of LENR, as compared to an operating a uranium reactor. The power density is MUCH higher in LENR. If you want to impress someone - it might be best to use that article.
That is because there are a number of untenable assumptions in going from power to energy over the long term, and this makes the figures you are using essentially meaningless to any scientist. If LENR depends on surface structure, nano-features and loading, then it is possible that a run of weeks or months, not years, is the maximum time before some kind of "restructuring" - or "regrooving" as Terry's friends call it - will be needed, which could be as simple as removing the electrode and reprocessing by mechanical means - who knows. Plus, the possibility of nuclear activation of Pd has never been eliminated in any study. Usually it is glossed over or ignored as if the researcher had blinders on. However, if any tritium, neutrons, or electrode transmutation happens at all - and one or the other of these INVARIABLY does happen, then this problem must be dealt with in terms of how it affects extended duration runs. In figuring the energy of uranium - the "burnup" after ever refueling is often in the range of only 5% - but that assumes that the fuel will not be reprocessed. It should be, and in fact all of the uranium fuel rods ever used in the USA are "out there" and still have about 95% of the original energy content available to use through reprocessing - which is a political decision - and a very "hot potato" so to speak. In the future - the advent of advanced robotics - independent robots with a brain, and which can be designed to operate in a highly radioactive environment, will probably make fuel reprocessing cost effective. Essentially that will be a huge windfall to whomever is positioned to benefit from it. And the smart worker-bots could be coming from Silicon Valley, since robots there are already heavily in use. Heck, if Steve Jobs lives long enough, and that is doubtful, we could even see an innovator like Apple getting into the power business... iPower from the AppleCrisp reactor ? Jones -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]] I would appreciate it if someone could check my arithmetic. Roulette data from: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf UO2 data from ANS and the source Terry found. 1 pellet of UO2 fuel weighs 7 g and produces as much as 3.5 bbl of oil. 3.5 bbl = 147 gallons. As 131 MJ/gallon that's 19,257 MJ/pellet or 2,751 MJ/g UO2 1 g of oil produces 0.042 MJ Roulette used cylindrical cathodes 100 x 2 mm = 0.314 cm3 Density of Pd = 12.023 g/cm3 So that's 3.77 g per cathode, about half of the 7 g fuel pellet Roulette reported the longest run of 158 days (5 months), with 294 MJ output. That's 78 MJ/g. That is 35 times less than UO2. It is 1,857 times more than oil. To put it another way, if Roulette had left this cathode running for 15 years, instead of 5 months, it would have produced 10,385 MJ, or about as much as 3.77 g of UO2 (a half-pellet). The average operating cycle for UO2 (the EFPD) is about 400 days, I think.
