Agree with response 1, although if there is any chance of gamma during startup/shutdown/malfunction/breach I can see the NRC wanting to be in the loop.
Response 2, I have no idea. It seems like if the transmuted rare earth metal final product was clean and the economics were right, there might be a market. Response 3, Scary On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > “It seems to me that a cold fusion system with containment is still better > than a hot fission system with containment, i.e. Fukushima. since a cold > fusion system can "cool down" by itself without having to dump half the > ocean on it...” > > This is true. But it is worth almost anything to keep the Nuclear > Regulatory Commission (NRC) out of the cold fusion field completely. The > NRC will kill cold fusion like it has done to Nuclear. The NRC has a global > reach and their regulatory environment is stifling in the extreme. > > Rossi could have fielded a heat and radiation generating reactor product > years ago but in his great wisdom Rossi went for the gold ring; a product > in which the NRC has no business to even track let alone regulate. > > The NRC regulation is a cost multiplier in order of magnitude dimensions. > > “Also, if Nanospire is creating an assortment of rare earth metals through > various transmutations and decays, it seems like that might be a USEFUL > thing as long as you contain any radiation during production. > > If the rare earth metals customer bought transmutation product from > NanoSpire, they would be willing to buy the same type material from > reprocessed nuclear fission waste stockpiles. But there is a deep > psychological block among the general puplic to accept such products. I > just don’t thing that the transmutation metals market is there. > > "Nanospire directed their Rydberg crystals at an aluminum core for initial > tests, it seems like Rydberg "Spires" could be aimed at just about any > element's Coulomb Barrier and yield some interesting results...” > > If a NanoSpire core was fabricated from thorium or uranium instead of > aluminum, such a modified reactor might be a huge proliferation risk. > > The DOE should be building such a reactor right now to exclude this > proliferation/dirty bomb possibility. > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Chemical Engineer <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Axil, >> >> I appreciate your ongoing technical and logical explanations, primarily >> because I can understand them... My one comment about your following >> statement: >> * >> * >> *"Without this radiation suppression mechanism in place and operating AT >> ALL TIMES, a cold fusion system is of little use.* " >> >> It seems to me that a cold fusion system with containment is still better >> than a hot fission system with containment, i.e. Fukushima. since a cold >> fusion system can "cool down" by itself without having to dump half the >> ocean on it... The $20B ITER project will have significant containment to >> protect against intense neutron bombardment from the core. >> >> Also, if Nanospire is creating an assortment of rare earth metals through >> various transmutations and decays, it seems like that might be a USEFUL >> thing as long as you contain any radiation during production. Nanospire >> directed their Rydberg crystals at an aluminum core for initial tests, it >> seems like Rydberg "Spires" could be aimed at just about any element's >> Coulomb Barrier and yield some interesting results... >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> *IMHO, we have been correctly told by DGT that their LENR process is a >>> complex one comprised of many related and interconnected but separable >>> sub-processes which when combined together produce heat without the >>> production of intense and long lasting radiation.* >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *I believe that their cold fusion process includes one sub-process that >>> removes or greatly lowers the coulomb barrier to allow various neighboring >>> nucleons to come together in a wide assortment of ways to form new types of >>> nuclei. This process not only produces radiation from the nuclear fusion >>> process but also from resulting newly created isotopes.* >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *The other major sub-process is one that overlays this fusion process >>> and thermalizes this radiation production. This process involves the >>> establishment and maintenance of a quantum mechanical coherent environment >>> within in the nuclear active population of nuclei.* >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *What I am saying is that a large amount of radiation will be generated >>> in a fusion system that is not coherent. * >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *A example of such a system that produces radiation and transmutation >>> is the NanoSpire system. This system is not quantum mechanically coherent >>> and as a result it will generated intense radiation from its intense fusion >>> process. * >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *Rossi’s major concern was to eliminate or at least greatly mitigate >>> any radiation produced by his system. He has pulled this off and this is a >>> major accomplishment of both Rossi and DGT in they mostly produce heat and >>> have suppressed radiation from there systems.* >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *Without this radiation suppression mechanism in place and operating AT >>> ALL TIMES, a cold fusion system is of little use.* >>> >>> * * >>> >>> * * >>> >>> * * >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Joseph Hao <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> ** >>>> Hey Vortex Gang, >>>> >>>> My primary question motivating this post/query is to get a consensus on >>>> whether the presence of radiation is a necessary prerequisite for LENR/Cold >>>> Fusion Effects. IOW, is radiation ALWAYS present when an LENR/Cold Fusion >>>> effect occurs. >>>> >>>> On one hand, there appears to be copious evidence that radiation of >>>> some form or another is present during an LENR process. On the other hand, >>>> many people, including many here in Vortex appears to brush aside the >>>> evidence of radiation as circumstantial and unverified. What is >>>> the consensus? Is Radiation always present? Is Radiation a foolproof >>>> indication of an LENR process? >>>> >>>> This question is prompted after mulling over what Axil suggested to me >>>> a few post back. In his suggestion to my experimental protocols, he >>>> suggested I consider integrating a Cloud Chamber into my experiments. >>>> Well, after thinking about it for a while and trying to come up with a >>>> suitable way of integrating a "HOT" reactor inside a "COLD" cloud chamber; >>>> I have come to the conclusion that it might be beyond my technical and >>>> financial ability to do so. So, instead, I have come up with the second >>>> best thing. I have been thinking of integrating my reactor, not into a >>>> Cloud Chamber, but rather into an Ion Chamber design. Integrating a hot >>>> reactor into an Ion chamber appears to be straightforward and simple. >>>> >>>> So, instead of using flow calorimetry to detect excess heat in an LENR >>>> process, I will be using the Ion chamber to detect radiation. As far as I >>>> know, there is no known chemical process that releases radiation, if the >>>> reactants start from non-radioactive elements. So, if I detect radiation, >>>> high enough to be detectable in a DIY Ion chamber, then that excess >>>> radiation must be way above ambient, which means that there is only one >>>> possible conclusion - that my reactor inside the Ion chamber is releasing >>>> radiation. And since the reactor walls would be thick(er), most of the >>>> detected radiation would not be Alphas and Betas, but rather higher energy >>>> gammas. And if I am detecting copious gammas, then an LENR reaction must >>>> be the source. I'm thinking this might be a more straightforward way of >>>> detecting LENR reactions, rather than Heat calorimetry. >>>> >>>> What do you guys? Is this a good way to hunt for the LENR/Rossi >>>> process and catalysts? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
