From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 06:05:02 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51D4vbb013426; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 06:04:57 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51D4tQR013403; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 06:04:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 06:04:55 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <000c01c447d9$19ca2510$abe27c52@pavilion> Reply-To: "Pierre.CLAUZON" From: "Pierre.CLAUZON" To: Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?NIFENECKER_HERV=E9?= , "Remy Carle" , "Georges VENDRYES" , "Jean Paul CRETTE" References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040531112537.020158c8@mail.lenr-canr.org> Subject: Re: New Scientist reports reactor safety concerns---- a rebuttal Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 15:05:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54678 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Jed, I don't follow you on your nuclear option rejection, as you may recall, and specially on the fast reactor option. 80% of the electricity in France comes from nuclear and the oldest nuclear plant in operation ( 30 years in July 2004) is a fast breeder PHENIX ( 165 MWe ). The stop of SUPERPHENIX (1200MWe) on 1996 was only due to fallacious political reason, after a very good operating factor that year. And in your answer, you forgot also to mention the very good results obtained by the Russians with Beloyarsk fast breeder plant ( 600 MWe)... By the way, I would advise you and all the vortexians to read the paper given by a very well known ecologist, James Lovelock, in the Independent journal: http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=524230 Hope to see you in Marseille at the ICCF11 with our friend Jean-Paul Biberian. I may try to arrange you a visit to Phenix, if you want. Pierre ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" To: Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 6:08 PM Subject: Re: New Scientist reports reactor safety concerns---- a rebuttal > Standing Bear wrote: > > > I listened to this kind of arrant nonsense all during the pacifist 70's and > > the beginning of the materialist 80's. The only thing that resulted is that > > the nuclear plants that WERE built were not American . . . > > All nuclear plants in the U.S. were designed and built by U.S. companies. > > > > Fission energy fills a gap between fossil energy and fusion energy. > > Alternatives such as wind power would fill that gap at a much lower > cost, with less pollution, with no safety concerns. (Uranium mining and > fuel production causes significant pollution.) > > > > We do not know when fusion will become a practical alternative, so must do > > the economics of today until tomorrow comes. Uranium sources will > eventually > > run out as well. > > Actually, there is already a 250 year supply, mainly in Canada and > Australia. There is a huge glut of uranium. > > > > Extending the uranium resource can is best > > accomplished with breeder reactor technology. > > Perhaps in the future this will true. There is no rush; we have a 250 year > supply, and the used uranium will still be here if better breeder > technology is developed. However the U.S. "Fermi" and Japanese "Monji" > breeder programs were both technical and economic fiascos. They both > suffered from major fires caused by the same thing. The Japanese program > would have produced electricity many times more expensive than any other > source. It would have been economic insanity to continue with it, even if > the reactor had not been seriously damaged and permanently mothballed. > > > > The Japanese have embarked on > > this path but seem to be faltering in resolve. > > Yes, they can do arithmetic. They are not "faltering." The program is dead > as dead can be, much to the relief of the Japanese power companies. The U.S > Enrico Fermi breeder reactor was a similar case of a government program out > of control. From 1951 to 1964, the reactor was either under construction > years behind schedule, or under repair after catastrophic failures. The > repairs alone cost far more than the initial projected cost. In the end, I > recall it actually operated for a couple of weeks during that 13 year period. > > There is now more actual (not nameplate) wind power worldwide than there > was nuclear power in the mid 1960s, which was supposedly the heyday of > nuclear power. The cost of wind turbine generators per kilowatt of capacity > is six times lower than nuclear plants. North Dakota alone could generate > enough wind-based hydrogen to power all of the motor vehicles in the U.S. > People who call themselves conservatives, and who think it is important to > free the U.S. from foreign fuel sources such as oil and uranium, should > automatically advocate wind power instead. If you insist on building only > proven, existing technology, wind is the only sane choice. Even apart from > considerations of global warming, terrorist attacks with dirty bombs, and > so on, it is a no-brainer. The U.S. has two sources of energy in vast > abundance: coal and wind power. It seems obvious to me which should be > developed. > > The world's most concentrated wind energy happens to be located right in > the middle of our natural gas pipeline network in the Dakotas and Texas. We > was sitting as much potential annual energy production as the middle east > produces, and ours will never run out. We have approximately 3,000 > quads/year of potential wind energy, excluding all environmentally fragile > areas, national parks, airports and so on. Estimated wind resources > increase year by year, because wind turbines are growing larger, and they > sweep a larger cross section of the atmosphere. The entire U.S. consumes > 100 quads; transportation takes 38 quads, and it would take half or one > third of that with hydrogen vehicles, because they are more efficient. > > - Jed > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 08:35:41 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51FZWbb027328; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 08:35:32 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51FZUFk027314; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 08:35:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 08:35:30 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040601112212.00b23620@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:36:06 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: New Scientist reports reactor safety concerns---- a rebuttal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54679 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Pierre.CLAUZON writes: > I don't follow you on your nuclear option rejection . . . I am not exactly rejecting it. I wrote: "As long as everything goes according to plan, I have to admit [nuclear reactors] are a superb source of energy: nonpolluting, inexpensive, highly concentrated. Even the radwaste disposal problem seems to be less of a a health risk than things such as coal." That is not a categorical rejection. However, the public does not support nuclear power, and there are viable alternatives, so I think we should look elsewhere. > 80% of the electricity in France > comes from nuclear and the oldest nuclear plant in operation ( 30 years in > July 2004) is a fast breeder PHENIX ( 165 MWe ). The stop of SUPERPHENIX > (1200MWe) on 1996 was only due to fallacious political reason . . . I do not know anything about that. The U.S. and Japanese breeder reactor programs were fiascos. > By the way, I would advise you and all the vortexians to read the paper > given by a very well known ecologist, James Lovelock, in the Independent > journal: > http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=524230 This looks like overblown hysteria to me. I agree that global warming may be a catastrophe in many ways, but some of his assertions are wrong. If the ice around the north pole melted, the ocean would not rise, because that ice is floating. Melting the ice in Antarctica and Iceland would raise water levels, obviously. The main thing is, we have many alternatives to nuclear power. Some, such as expanded telecommuting, would be orders of magnitude cheaper, and they would raise the quality of life. > Hope to see you in Marseille at the ICCF11 with our friend Jean-Paul > Biberian. I may try to arrange you a visit to Phenix, if you want. I would love to visit it! - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 10:33:46 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51HXapP019475; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:33:41 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51HX7n5019307; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:33:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:33:07 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <20040601173248.29519.qmail@web81102.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:32:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: New Scientist reports reactor safety concerns---- a rebuttal To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040601112212.00b23620@mail.lenr-canr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-108760861-1086111168=:28891" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54680 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --0-108760861-1086111168=:28891 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii For those who are keenly pursuing the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth' on this very complex subject, the following recent thread on Slashdot offers some insight... if you have the time... as those bits of insight are scattered amongst 500 or so highly charged opinions, many reactionary: http://science.slashdot.org/science/04/05/31/226239.shtml?tid=126&tid=134 It is curious that this is a secondary thread that follows-up on comments of other self-appointed energy-experts who were themselves commenting on that most amazing utterance... that seemingly shocking assertion of Lovelock, the idol (formerly) of many environmentalist. I think Lovelock got it right. As to the claim that "the public doesn't support nuclear energy", I see this as a temporary matter requiring re-education, and not a major policy consideration. 'The public', once it gets down to 'push-and-shove' consistently supports what is best for their pocketbook, with small passing-concern for their offspring's health and happiness; and that will probably be the stance of our elected politicians as well. It really gets down to economics and sustainability (for a horizon that is generational, and not really long-term in the sense of more than 20-40 years ahead). The most curious thing in all of this, to me, is that the fission issue comes juxtaposed to those recent enigmatic comments of Hoagland about CF in the context of fissile fuel and the DoE. Personally, I find almost nothing that Hoagland says believable, but nevertheless a few of us on vortex for many years have been suggesting that the consistent and arrogant pretense of ‘official neglect' for CF, in the face of increasingly positive experimental results, probably relates to non-proliferation issues that are only known to a select few (MIT?) and are being hidden (from the scientific community and even hidden from some government lab personnel like at China Lake and even LLNL). What could these hidden issues be? Were they related to the enigmatic references made in that Hoagland interview regarding transmutation of a mystery material into U-235. It is difficult to see how this isotope could come from any CF reaction involving uranium, but less difficult to imagine that it could result for a CF reaction involving thorium... which brings to mind another semi-mystery from the recent past history of CF - that being the one involving the so-called "Cincinnati group" and their 'thorium remediation reactor'. As memory serves, this was a favorite of Gene Mallove's before its rather sudden disappearance from the scene. You can read about it in "Thorium Activity Remediation," The Cincinnati Group, Robert Bass, Robert T. Bush, Robert Liversage, et al Infinite Energy, Vol.3, #13-14 Special Double Issue, March-June 1997, pp.16-32. If it was thorium combined with LENR, you will probably see the first commercial use of this technology come from India, believe it or not, as they have most of the world’s supply of thorium, most of the world’s poverty, some very researchers, and are already in the nuclear ‘club,’ and not a big US trading partner so Washington can’t really do much about it, other than hope that our researchers find the needed breakthroughs first (assuming some are needed). I’m kind of surprised that a few of the Indian LENR researchers have not joined this forum, but maybe they have been encouraged not to go public with their work. Jones --0-108760861-1086111168=:28891 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

For those who are keenly pursuing the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth' on this very complex subject, the following recent thread on Slashdot offers some insight... if you have the time... as those bits of insight are scattered amongst 500 or so highly charged opinions, many reactionary:

 

http://science.slashdot.org/science/04/05/31/226239.shtml?tid=126&tid=134

 

It is curious that this is a secondary thread that follows-up on comments of other self-appointed energy-experts who were themselves commenting on that most amazing utterance... that seemingly shocking assertion of Lovelock, the idol (formerly) of many environmentalist.

 

I think Lovelock got it right.

 

As to the claim that "the public doesn't support nuclear energy", I see this as a temporary matter requiring re-education, and not a major policy consideration. 'The public', once it gets down to 'push-and-shove' consistently supports what is best for their pocketbook, with small passing-concern for their offspring's health and happiness; and that will probably be the stance of our elected politicians as well. It really gets down to economics and sustainability (for a horizon that is generational, and not really long-term in the sense of more than 20-40 years ahead).

 

The most curious thing in all of this, to me, is that the fission issue comes juxtaposed to those recent enigmatic comments of Hoagland about CF in the context of fissile fuel and the DoE. Personally, I find almost nothing that Hoagland says believable, but nevertheless a few of us on vortex for many years have been suggesting that the consistent and arrogant pretense of ‘official neglect' for CF, in the face of increasingly positive experimental results, probably relates to non-proliferation issues that are only known to a select few (MIT?) and are being hidden (from the scientific community and even hidden from some government lab personnel like at China Lake and even LLNL).

 

What could these hidden issues be?

 

Were they related to the enigmatic references made in that Hoagland interview regarding transmutation of a mystery material into U-235. It is difficult to see how this isotope could come from any CF reaction involving uranium, but less difficult to imagine that it could result for a CF reaction involving thorium... which brings to mind another semi-mystery from the recent past history of CF - that being the one involving the so-called "Cincinnati group" and their 'thorium remediation reactor'. As memory serves, this was a favorite of Gene Mallove's before its rather sudden disappearance from the scene. You can read about it in "Thorium Activity Remediation," The Cincinnati Group, Robert Bass, Robert T. Bush, Robert Liversage, et al Infinite Energy, Vol.3, #13-14 Special Double Issue, March-June 1997, pp.16-32.

 

If it was thorium combined with LENR, you will probably see the first commercial use of this technology come from India, believe it or not, as they have most of the world’s supply of thorium, most of the world’s poverty, some very researchers, and are already in the nuclear ‘club,’ and not a big US trading partner so Washington can’t really do much about it, other than hope that our researchers find the needed breakthroughs first (assuming some are needed).

 

I’m kind of surprised that a few of the Indian LENR researchers have not joined this forum, but maybe they have been encouraged not to go public with their work.

 

Jones

 

 

 

--0-108760861-1086111168=:28891-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 11:37:39 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51IbPbb020294; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:37:26 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51IbKGU020199; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:37:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:37:20 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <20040601183735.42117.qmail@web81102.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:37:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Jones Beene Subject: further note To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <20040601173248.29519.qmail@web81102.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1025202071-1086115055=:42012" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54681 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --0-1025202071-1086115055=:42012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One further note on the related subject of a supposed Hoagland-created mystery involving DoE, Mallove, U235, etc. >From ICCF 10: "Changes In The Radioactivity, Topography, And Surface Composition Of Uranium After Hydrogen Loading By Aqueous Electrolysis" Dash, J. and D. Chicea, Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA http://www.lenr-canr.org/PDetail2.htm#721 ABSTRACT Hydrogen loading of natural uranium foils was performed by aqueous electrolysis in order to compare with glow discharge results…. Results reveal an increase of the specific counts for the peaks of … U235 …. Oops. Why wasn't this research classified, confiscated, cleansed, marginalized and removed and obliterated from the public record? I guess that missing this kind of thing is an unintended result of ‘official neglect’ by the science police…. Stay tuned.... Jones Next episode: A raid on the LENR.org web-server and offices by the Dustappo (a.k.a. The Office of Homeland Security) ? --0-1025202071-1086115055=:42012 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

One further note on the related subject of a supposed Hoagland-created mystery involving DoE, Mallove, U235, etc.

 

From ICCF 10: "Changes In The Radioactivity, Topography, And Surface Composition Of Uranium After Hydrogen Loading By Aqueous Electrolysis"  Dash, J. and D. Chicea, Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA

 

http://www.lenr-canr.org/PDetail2.htm#721

 

ABSTRACT

Hydrogen loading of natural uranium foils was performed by aqueous electrolysis in order to compare with glow discharge results…. Results reveal an increase of the specific counts for the peaks of … U235 ….

 

Oops. Why wasn't this research classified, confiscated, cleansed, marginalized and removed and obliterated from the public record?

 

I guess that missing this kind of thing is an unintended result of ‘official neglect’ by the science police….

 

Stay tuned....

 

Jones

 

Next episode: A raid on the LENR.org web-server and offices by the Dustappo (a.k.a. The Office of Homeland Security) ?

 

--0-1025202071-1086115055=:42012-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 11:38:18 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51Ic8pP009875; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:38:09 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51Ic43t009837; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:38:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:38:04 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <20040601183748.76516.qmail@web81106.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:37:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jones Beene Subject: further note To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <20040601173248.29519.qmail@web81102.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1217040217-1086115068=:76123" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54682 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --0-1217040217-1086115068=:76123 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One further note on the related subject of a supposed Hoagland-created mystery involving DoE, Mallove, U235, etc. >From ICCF 10: "Changes In The Radioactivity, Topography, And Surface Composition Of Uranium After Hydrogen Loading By Aqueous Electrolysis" Dash, J. and D. Chicea, Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA http://www.lenr-canr.org/PDetail2.htm#721 ABSTRACT Hydrogen loading of natural uranium foils was performed by aqueous electrolysis in order to compare with glow discharge results…. Results reveal an increase of the specific counts for the peaks of … U235 …. Oops. Why wasn't this research classified, confiscated, cleansed, marginalized and removed and obliterated from the public record? I guess that missing this kind of thing is an unintended result of ‘official neglect’ by the science police…. Stay tuned.... Jones Next episode: A raid on the LENR.org web-server and offices by the Dustappo (a.k.a. The Office of Homeland Security) ? --0-1217040217-1086115068=:76123 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

One further note on the related subject of a supposed Hoagland-created mystery involving DoE, Mallove, U235, etc.

 

From ICCF 10: "Changes In The Radioactivity, Topography, And Surface Composition Of Uranium After Hydrogen Loading By Aqueous Electrolysis"  Dash, J. and D. Chicea, Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA

 

http://www.lenr-canr.org/PDetail2.htm#721

 

ABSTRACT

Hydrogen loading of natural uranium foils was performed by aqueous electrolysis in order to compare with glow discharge results…. Results reveal an increase of the specific counts for the peaks of … U235 ….

 

Oops. Why wasn't this research classified, confiscated, cleansed, marginalized and removed and obliterated from the public record?

 

I guess that missing this kind of thing is an unintended result of ‘official neglect’ by the science police….

 

Stay tuned....

 

Jones

 

Next episode: A raid on the LENR.org web-server and offices by the Dustappo (a.k.a. The Office of Homeland Security) ?

 

--0-1217040217-1086115068=:76123-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 11:46:21 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51IkFbb023074; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:46:16 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51IkFUH023057; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:46:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:46:15 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: From: "Johnson, Steven" To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Cc: "Johnson, Steven" Subject: RE: New Scientist reports reactor safety concerns---- a rebuttal Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:46:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-PMX-Version: 4.6.0.99824, Antispam-Core: 4.6.0.99824, Antispam-Data: 2004.6.1.102168 Resent-Message-ID: <0DkZdD.A.NoF.37MvAB@ultra6.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54683 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > -----Original Message----- > From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:JedRothwell@mindspring.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:36 AM > To: vortex-L@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: New Scientist reports reactor safety concerns---- a > rebuttal > > > Pierre.CLAUZON writes: > ... > > > 80% of the electricity in France > > comes from nuclear and the oldest nuclear plant in operation ( 30 years > > in July 2004) is a fast breeder PHENIX ( 165 MWe ). The stop of > > SUPERPHENIX (1200MWe) on 1996 was only due to fallacious political reason > > . . . > > I do not know anything about that. The U.S. and Japanese > breeder reactor > programs were fiascos. Years ago I saw a documentary that explained some interesting differences concerning how France and the United States approached the building of nuclear power utilities. What stuck in my head was how France had chosen to follow a standardization procedure that was far more strict than how our country went about constructing nuclear power plants. If I remember the documentary correctly, France essentially agreed to use a SINGLE engineering model design, one that worked reasonably well for them. I think France chose to abide by stricter regulatory controls in the building of Nuclear facilities. France used the same engineering designs over and over. One of the major advantages for following this methodology was that it turned out to be considerably cheaper to build additional nuclear plants than in the United States. There were fewer unknowns that had to be contended with. France probably also ended up with a better knowledge base of what each of their plant's strong and weak points would be since they were all designed from the same engineering template. The United States, on the other hand, approached the building of each Nuclear Power plant as if each one was a biblical act of creation. The ideals of Capitalism were supposed to drive how each plant would be built, and presumably in the most efficient cost effective way possible. Unfortunately, what actually happened was that each facility tended to be redesigned from scratch by the "lowest winning bidder". Engineers hired by the winning contractors rarely took advantage of tried and true designs that had already been worked out in the building of previous plants. Our own Yankee-can-do & individualistic desire to build the cheapest most efficient nuclear power facilities may have, in truth, backfired on us in the worst way. Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 12:22:12 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51JM6bb000434; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:22:06 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51JM4B6000414; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:22:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:22:04 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <40BCD765.9050501@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:22:13 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: further note References: <20040601183748.76516.qmail@web81106.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20040601183748.76516.qmail@web81106.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54684 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: > ABSTRACT > > Hydrogen loading of natural uranium foils was performed by aqueous > electrolysis in order to compare with glow discharge results…. Results > reveal an increase of the specific counts for the peaks of … U235 …. > Gee, did they do an isotopic analysis of the U238/U235 ratio afterward???? (This is normally 137.88 -- Hey, there's that magic number again!) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 12:27:05 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51JQspP024811; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:26:55 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51JQrvL024792; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:26:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:26:53 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Sender: jack@mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <40BCC904.6FCB0D42@centurytel.net> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:20:52 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hoagland Interview References: <40BBA979.3050303@rtpatlanta.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="xv" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="xv" Resent-Message-ID: <7INnk.A.TDG.9hNvAB@ultra5.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54685 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, I've enclosed below about 20% of Art Bell's program on Gene Mallove. Jack Smith --------------------------- http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/05-22-2004/Bell-InterviewPartOne.htm ``Hoagland & Wilcock on Coast to Coast 5-15/16-04 [AB is Art Bell] AB: From the high desert in the great American southwest, I bid you all good evening, good morning, good afternoon -- as the time zone may dictate -- all of them covered like a blanket by this program, Coast to Coast AM. I'm Art Bell. It's the weekend, and I am honored to be with you on a Saturday night going into Sunday morning, and of course tomorrow night as well. I have some shocking and tragic news for you at the top of the program and I'm sure Richard's gonna have a lot to say about this and will probably fill me in on details I don't yet have. But what it boils down to is that Dr Eugene Mallove is dead. And it is indeed with great sadness that we report the passing of Gene Mallove who died, no, correction, was killed, on May 14th apparently due to some sort of -- we don't know about this -- allegedly, some are saying 'some kind of property dispute'. It is considered by the police to be a homicide and an investigation is under way now. Gene is survived by his wife Joanne, son Ethan, and daughter Kim. No funeral arrangements are known at this time. Gene Mallove who in 1991, wrote the book 'Fire from Ice': -- now, maybe you know him, if you didn't -- 'Searching for the Truth behind the Cold Fusion Furor'. [He] was the first to courageously and boldly express the truth behind cold fusion long before any science journalist ever dared to. He maintained the cold fusion [crusade] at great personal sacrifice, which initially drew many to learn the truth behind cold fusion. Gene's generosity and commitment to a better world will be forever appreciated." That was written by Steven B. Krivet. There were, you know, a hundred emails in my inbox about the apparent bludgeoning death of Dr Mallove and I just don't know what to say about this except the number of scientists, and research biologists, and astronomers who have met their death prematurely, in so many cases, is beginning to add up to a fairly large number ... So that's the world news. Of course the real shocking news is about Eugene Mallove, and we're about to, I'm sure, hear more from Richard C. Hoagland. We are also going to be joined shortly by David Wilcock, assuming he can find [a proper telephone], perhaps at the bottom of the hour, and he's on a mad dash trying to find a telephone ... RH: You know, we've done a lot of shows over the years and this is gonna be one of the more difficult ones, because Gene and I go way back, and I had talked to him just a couple days ago. Some of the things that we're gonna talk about tonight, you know, that we've never talked about before, were part of that conversation. Robin and I were planning to go to New Hampshire next week to meet with him and the people at his lab, the New Energy Foundation, and discuss some very important political and technical developments relating to new energy, hyper-dimensional physics, cold fusion, anti-gravity [!] -- if you want to even use that term. There are some extraordinary breakthroughs waiting in the wings -- and when we got a call early afternoon today, from a very close friend so that I knew that it was not a hoax, and he relayed that he had had a call from someone that he believed about this shocking, absolutely incomprehensible thing, I spent the rest of the day trying to track down if this was real ... Apparently he was found, his body was found in the yard of his family home. AB: Bludgeoned? RH: Bludgeoned to death. He was beaten to death. AB: My God. How old was he, Richard, do you know? RH: He was about my age and your age. We're all the same age. You know, the folks who are trying to make the world better are just about the same age. And it's so shocking to have talked to somebody who was so vibrant and had so many exciting things going on. Tonight I'm hoping that this show can become a kind of living memorial to Gene's work. You know, they talk about people who will change the world. Well, Gene was changing the world. And I have this awful sinking feeling that that's the reason he's no longer with us tonight; that this rearguard action [is] to prevent the future from coming, to prevent a new day from dawning. A few Neanderthals are running around out there doing despicable things, in a desperate last minute attempt to keep the inevitable from happening. And the reason I say that is because the coincidence of what we talked about and me talking to him at all, because we hadn't talked on the phone for two years ... Gene was at the center of the spider web of all of the credible scientists and technologists and engineers who have labored for so many years in the vineyards to bring forth this so-called 'free energy' and new energy physics and technology which this planet so desperately, desperately needs. AB: It certainly does. Richard, so, he was a leader in Cold Fusion. Now, Cold Fusion in America was a very controversial thing. As you know some institutions of higher learning were able to duplicate the experiments while others were not. It was kind of quietly dropped. Pons and Fleischman moved to Europe, got fed up with the way it was being treated in this country. Where did Dr Eugene Mallove fit in, in the scheme of things? RH: Well, Gene started out like we all started out -- very squeaky clean mainstream. You know my background was Cronkite/NASA, his background was MIT; he had two or three PhD's, I kind of lost track. He was a nuclear physicist, he was an environmental scientist. He knew the bad -- [the] 'down side' -- of nuclear physics and nuclear fission, and the myth of hot fusion, which we've always been promised would happen, and it hasn't happened for thirty, forty years. It's almost like the quote from Alice in Wonderland, "Jam tomorrow, jam yesterday, but never jam today." AB: He was still an advocate of it. RH: Not hot fusion -- not at all! AB: No. RH: What turned him into an activist in the new energy frontier was when he was [the] science writer, [the] head science writer at MIT, which is a very prestigious position. He found scientists on the payroll of the department of energy at MIT faking data against cold fusion experiments! AB: I've heard this. RH: It's not rumor -- it's fact. AB: Actually, altering. RH: Altering the data. AB: In other words to show? RH: Making it appear that their experiment, which received a positive result, actually perceived a negative result. And he was so incensed when his department would do nothing about this, this egregious violation of every science ethic if not moral ethic one can imagine. AB: He resigned over that? RH: He resigned over that, specifically. And then he went into a period where, you know when you kind of blow the whistle on the in-crowd, you get blacklisted? AB: Yes. RH: And you can't get a job. And he tried to launch an independent laboratory and journal devoted to cold fusion. He had done his homework. He had written the book "Fire from Ice". If you read the book, you'll see there was a multitude of data even back in 1989 showing that this was a real, if completely mysterious, phenomenon. But he spent a tremendous number of years, Art, basically paying the price of being a man of integrity. And that's one of the wonderful things that I loved about him. Because he was unstoppable, he was determined to get at the truth, whatever the truth was, make it public, and bring this paradigm, this new age, where this planet no longer has to suffer from the want and privation of the oil economy and the control of limited resources, which we're seeing the bitter, bitter fruits of now in the Middle East and on our TV screens every single night. AB: Yes, yes. RH: He was looking to a different day, a different path, a different dawning of the real human age. And on the eve of potentially some breakthroughs in that direction, he has been brutally murdered. AB: It was made to look like, or appears to be, robbery [as an] initial motive, or at least [that] he was robbed. That doesn't mean that's why he was killed. RH: We don't know really anything. We've got the names of the detectives, you know, from the police department. We're gonna talk with them tomorrow. We're putting other people in touch with them that may have information. I just find the coincidence, given the breakthrough that he described to me on the phone, which I can talk about, and given what I was going to be able to bring him to in the way of conversations at the center of power, you know, in Washington with the peoples' representatives. You know the White House may be out of bounds. AB: Richard, how much do you know about this, in quotes, "breakthrough" that he had told you about? Would it be so big that it might be a motive for murder? RH: Well there are several levels. There are the technical breakthroughs which I can talk about. This was a political breakthrough. Because remember Art, the problem has always been, once you solve the science, how do you get it before the American people. AB: Of course. So you're saying he had achieved a breakthrough in that arena? RH: He felt he had achieved a breakthrough. It was supposed to be moving forward in the next few weeks. It was one of the things we were going to discuss. I was actually quite skeptical because I know how Washington can grind important things into dust just by dragging them out interminably. And then you just quit. People just, they have to go on with their lives. He felt this was a political breakthrough. Well, let me tell you in a nutshell what he said it was. Many years ago, back in 1989, there was a very stinging, negative Department of Energy report which basically put the nails in the coffin of cold fusion. When the New York Times writes about cold fusion, or Popular Science, or The Washington Post, or Science Magazine, they're basically quoting from the conclusions of this panel of eminent scientists/physicists. AB: In a nutshell Richard, time's almost up here in the half hour-- RH: Yep. But basically [the DOE Report] said there was nothing there. RH: What Gene told me two day ago, is [that] the Department of Defense, the DOD -- because of a sudden new perceived, get this, "terrorist angle on cold fusion and new energy?" AB: Terrorist angle, yes ... RH: And he -- the reason the DOD is now involved [in reassessing the 1989 DOE Report] -- is because there is a quote, "terrorist connection to cold fusion", which is bizarre -- it's because it's linked through the DOE -- and their nuclear weapons mandate ... AB: ... All right, time to bring David, he's been patient ... DW: ... I have seen evidence of people having threats or being assassinated. One example would be [from when] I spoke with Dale Pond. He had made a breakthrough [in free energy], and then came home and found a burnt match in the middle of the carpet of his living room. Another example, which is even more bizarre, occurred with somebody who I actually spoke on the same stage with, and I guess I won't say his name right now. This particular guy had made a breakthrough in free energy [achieving an over-unity effect], and the first time it happened -- the very next morning when he came back to his lab -- everything related to the experiment was missing -- including all the paperwork, all the prototypes, et cetera. Then, later on, he made another breakthrough. This time it was in his own private apartment. And he goes out for his son's baseball game, which takes about four hours of time, and he comes back to his apartment, and there's no carpets, there's no shower curtain, there's no shower curtain rod, there's no furniture, there's nothing in the cabinets. The entire apartment was literally gutted head-to-toe. That's sounds pretty outrageous, I don't know how somebody could move that quickly in four hours, but I suppose it's possible. And I believe he was telling me the truth. AB: As most of my audience knows, David, there have been a bevy, I guess you'd say, of research biologists, people working on all kinds of little bugs, other scientists working on, you know, leading edge, cutting edge science in a number of fields that have met very mysterious deaths in the last few years. I mean, this is just one more. DW: Yeah, the literature on this is pretty solid. I guess as far as the personal angle, which is a question had Richard also answered recently, I am reminded of a quote from Abraham Lincoln where he says, "I would rather die once at the hands of an assassin than die every day in fear of assassination." AB: That's right. And that's really the answer to the danger question. You just can't live your life that way. Yes, some lines of work are more dangerous than others, for obvious reasons. RH: What is so ironic is that, in [my] conversation [with Gene,] we were talking about [how] the dam appears to be about to break. It's been fifteen years -- coming up on fifteen years -- since Pons and Fleischman, and the negative DOE Report -- which basically killed all official scientific interest, you know, by the [scientific] journals, by Nature, by Science, by the DOE itself, as a source of [research] funding. Most scientists basically have to chase after grants to stay alive and keep publishing. But Gene held the torch very high, and he was able to marshal some very prestigious people on the Board of the [Infinite Energy] Magazine, and the Board of the [New Energy] Foundation. And I am confident tonight that this [research] will go on -- that this [murder] is [just] a desperate, stupid, insane act of "something" [to try to stop this research] -- but, I can't believe it's just "coincidence." ... Remember how, Art, you've always wanted a gadget to stick on your desk? AB: Well, that's what I've always said, just give me a, even a toy -- something! RH: Well, Gene has that. He had that. And I wanted that for my Washington presentations. And I'm still going to get that, because it wasn't just that he had it, he had access to it through other people who have done the actual research. So this is incredibly stupid, and all this has done is to alert everyone what the stakes really are tonight ... AB: And you were going to go? Are you going to actually have a demonstration available for me? You're going to have a real over-unity device? RH: Now that I don't have Gene to act as a go-between, it will be more difficult to get to the principles. But I'm gonna make one hell of a try, and I'm gonna try to do that. I don't know the timeframe yet. AB: But you're saying you have this device? RH: I know I-- AB: Or, you can lay your hands on it? RH: I know that Gene personally saw it, witnessed it, wrote about it -- gave testimonials. AB: All right, well you see? Hold on Richard, hold on David, we're approaching the top of the hour. If all of that is true, then that would potentially be a motive for murder. If you really had that, that would certainly be a motive for murder, and that's not to say that's why he was just murdered, bludgeoned to death. But if you really had what we just talked about, that would be a motive -- no question about it ... RH: Well, let me tell you what I wanted to read and then you can decide. AB: Yes. RH: This is Gene's last editorial, which is so incredibly prescient. It's almost like he knew he wasn't going to be with us. AB: Read it. RH: I'm sitting here, holding it in my lap, reading it again. AB: Go ahead and read it. RH: For the second time? AB: Right, just do it. RH: Okay. He calls it, 'Breakthrough: Science Censorship, the Invisible Evil'. "The Spirits and Opportunity rovers on Mars have left their landing cocoons, and are exploring the surface of an alien world that has been long captivating the human imagination. The robotic laboratories are sending back spectacular imagery and other data which, thanks to the Internet, gives scientists and laypeople around the world an unprecedented chance to explore, vicariously, another planet. There is no doubt that this is a huge accomplishment. It demonstrates progress in technological sophistication, in astronautics, communications, computer technology, and robotics, applied towards valuable ends to learn about another world by touching it from afar. The success of the latest Martian initiative might suggest to some that all is well in the halls of science. Everything is working as planned. New vistas are opening up. We may soon be confronted with further evidence that Mars harbors some kind of life or perhaps once had living things that left remains. Science has triumphed. We are collectively experiencing the fruits of over four centuries of revolutionary scientific progress. There appears to be no obvious evidence of science censorship in these missions; everyone gets to see pretty much all the data, all at once, in nearly real time. Wonderful. But beneath this triumph of the extension of human exploration stands another reality of that science, one that is not pleasant to contemplate. Just at this moment of success, for those of us who most of our lives have dreamed of Martian vistas opening up, we are now all too aware of how much more human beings would be accomplishing at this time, and how fantastically better off civilization would be, were we allowed to use collectively all of our faculties and powers of reason. But isn't science supposed to be one of the most liberating endeavors? How can I claim that we are not being allowed to use all our faculties and powers towards making a better world? Easy. If there is even one choke-point at which such appropriate information about scientific discoveries is withheld or diminished, the community of scientists and the supportive citizenry who fund their work publicly and privately are defrauded. Sadly, today, such a choke-point exists. It is the routine censoring of scientific information that does not conform to dominant scientific paradigms of the day." AB: Now, that's Eugene Mallove, brutally-- RH: And then, he went on to detail what exactly he was talking about ... AB: All right, hold it right there gentlemen. Richard C. Hoagland and David Wilcock are my guests. We're discussing a universal energy source that we're right in the middle of. It's all around us. We're also, of course, discussing the death -- the murder -- of Eugene Mallove, somebody who was leading the charge toward that energy. Bad news for this night. I'm Art Bell ... RH: --out of four hundred billion stars in the Milky Way alone. But we're one place where we know we're alive and conscious, and we now have astonishing evidence that 'something came before.' That's why I was so gratified that Gene really, really -- before he died -- got, unmistakably, that this [extraterrestrial archaeology] is science, we've got the data, and he was feeling that we were on the verge of a breakthrough in our area [of proving a former, incredibly advanced civilization on Mars]. Like he said [in that same phone call] he thought he was on the verge of [a political] breakthrough in this [new energy/cold fusion] area -- where he fought so many years -- and so hard ... AB: God, these are incredible things you're saying. So if these things are true, then why wouldn't science in the West say, 'Oh my God,' and 'Let's see if we can duplicate that experiment'? RH: Well?-- DW: Money. RH: --given that we've had fifteen years of 'non-progress' in the so-called cold fusion area -- where we have a stunning experiment, with eminently world-class reputable scientists in Utah, with an astonishing support from the Congress (because I know Robert Roe enacted legislation to try to move to help them almost immediately). How do I know this? Because I had a meeting with him on the Mars question [in 1989 -- right after the Pons and Fleischman announcement]. He was the head of the House Science Committee. I had a meeting on Cydonia, and one of the things we discussed back then, in 1989, was cold fusion and how he was moving to get the [Science] Committee to help. Do you know what happened to Robert Roe? He was first drummed out of his House Chairmanship, he then was drummed out of the House itself ... You want to know why this stuff is not mainstream? There is a control mechanism. There is censorship. It is as Gene Mallove said, in his last editorial, 'It is the evil -- the invisible evil of science and politics, in the 21st century.' AB: Why would the West, and modern science in the West, want to suppress something that could save all of humanity? RH: How is science funded? AB: By government? RH: And where does government get its money? AB: From us. RH: It picks our pockets, right? AB: Yeah. RH: It decides what [are the] priorities, it decides what's 'nonsense' and 'pseudo-science.' In order for a scientist to maintain a living, to put his kids through school, to pay for his car, to keep a roof over his head, he has to get grants. If the only trust you get a grant from is from agencies that tell you what is 'acceptable and not acceptable,' you quickly learn to fall in line with what's 'acceptable.' Gene said, in our last conversation ... AB: Well, whatever group you imagine to be doing this, would stop-- RH: How about the National Science Foundation' How about Science magazine? How about Nature? AB: How about 'em' RH: They have what's called -- Gene used to call it -- 'sneer review' -- where you basically can be attacked [anonymously, by other 'scientists']. In fact, let me get a specific-- AB: But my overall question is not being answered. Why would we want to block a technology? RH: But we don't! 'We' are not in charge! AB: I'm not, I don't mean you, Richard, and you David. I mean us collectively. RH: No. 'We' -- the collective body of 'Americans,' or, the collective body of the citizens of Italy or France or Germany -- we're not in charge! 'Somebody else' is, and they dictate our reality, they dictate the rules, they dictate the funding -- and those who do not go along pay awful prices -- up to, and maybe including, the 'ultimate price.' ... AB: We're out here really dancing on the edge, in my opinion. RH: Wait, wait, wait. According to Gene Mallove, in that last conversation (and again, I'm thinking about how incredibly prescient the things he said [were] and the things I said in that last conversation), where Gene was, when he died, is that current physics -- including quantum mechanics, relativity, zero-point, all of it -- is garbage. DW: Yep. RH: It's bunk. Complete garbage, Art. And what replaces it is something akin to what David and I have been talking about tonight, and this was from Mallove himself. The proof of this is in the experiments conducted by reputable, exquisitely genius-level people who have actual equipment and technology that is available to be seen on videos, or in person, and certainly funded for development -- and they can not get a dime of funding. In fact, his entreatment to me in our conversation was, 'Dick, if you know of anybody who has an extra ten or twenty thousand dollars to put into our non-profit foundation, so we can fund some of these critical experiments and keep these people alive, please let them know.' And I said to him, and this is incredibly ironic, I said, 'Gene you need to come back on 'Coast' and tell the Country what you've got in that drawer,? and he said, 'I would love to.' DW: I saw the film [of the kind of devices in that drawer in action. RH: And, two days later -- he can't do it ... AB: Okay, we agree on that. RH: Apart from that, apart from that the fact that Mallove has stood behind in public some stunning technologies -- technologies that go back to the work of Wilhelm Reich. Now, that's a name you should remember, Art. AB: Yes, of course. RH: Wilhelm Reich was a medical doctor, and he got into something called Orgone energy, which was never really understood. He tried to get Einstein to take it seriously, and there was some conversation there and Einstein did not really duplicate a key experiment. So ultimately, he passed, but the fact is that the people that Gene has worked with, in the lab that he set up, have done stunning confirmations of almost everything that Wilhelm Reich wrote about. And you know what happened to Reich in the 1940's? They ultimately arrested him-- DW: Yeah, he died broken-hearted. RH: --locked him in prison, and killed him ... AB: Once again, Richard C. Hoagland, David Wilcock. Gentlemen, welcome back ... RH: This is why I am planning, in the briefing that I am going to do on the Hill, to bring some of these technologies and if necessary some of the scientists to Washington to stand there with me. And Gene was going to be one of my prime witnesses. Well, there are a lot of others. Gene was a conduit, Gene was a nexus point, but Gene fortunately was not one-of-a-kind. AB: Well, Gene is obviously no longer with us. That's the horrible news of the night, folks. So you -- there's a device-- RH: Knowing his integrity, I mean, I will send to you, because you obviously have been looking at this and wanting a real set of stuff to appear for a long time? AB: Oh yes. RH: I will send you what he sent to me, which is his first-person technical and philosophical testimony of what he observed, the experiments, how it works, the technology, demonstrated in front of him. AB: Do you have enough information, Richard, to be led back to this, to get this device in question? RH: I know who the people are! I've talked with them! AB: OK. Can you make your way to this device? RH: Well, I can probably. I mean, I can call them. But maybe I shouldn't call them. Maybe I should physically go there, because the last person I called, very nasty things happened to. So I may have to be a little smarter about it this time. But yes, I know who they are and I know what they have done and I know the foundations it will rock if I can demonstrate to these people in Washington, these honest people, which I totally agree with David, that regardless of whether there is a cabal or not, 99.99% of the system, Art, is completely ignorant of anything ... DW: You got it. RH: ... Art, when that happens, and this is what I was telling Gene, and we had such joy sharing our positive outcomes now that we have gone through the vineyards and labored for so long to see light at the end of this tunnel-- AB: Mm hm. RH: I said, 'Gene, when that happens?' 'You don't have to tell me, Dick,' he said, 'All kinds of other paradigms will come marching through that door, and things people thought were impossible, outrageous, nonsense, bunk, pseudo-science, will suddenly have to be taken seriously, and the media will become our friend, because they will be avidly following up on the stories of all the other discoveries that nobody thought were true, but turn out to be true. And that, by the way, is the title of my talk on Capitol Hill. 'Life on Mars -- and Other Fantasies that are Real.' AB: Well, that should get their attention! Uh, David? ... RH: But the opposition is fighting so hard to keep us from figuring it out because, if we figure it out, and we get enough people to join us, we can make a difference. And that was what Gene died believing ...'' From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 12:32:17 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51JWDbb003034; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:32:13 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51JWCkW002994; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:32:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:32:12 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040601141252.00b23590@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:32:31 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: New Scientist reports reactor safety concerns---- a rebuttal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ultra6.eskimo.com id i51JW5bb002966 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54686 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene writes: "For those who are keenly pursuing the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth' on this very complex subject . . ." Very complex indeed, and that is a key point. I doubt there are many technically knowledgeable people who are unequivocally in favor of nuclear power, or adamantly opposed to it.. Even technophiles such as Arthur Clarke and Samuel Florman have mixed feelings about it. Ed Storms is no Luddite, but he expressed well-founded anxiety about the technology in this forum. I myself have written that I would rather live nearby a nuclear plant than a coal-fired plant. In my case, that is not a hypothetical choice. The Japanese power company plans to build one near our family house in Japan. No one can accuse me of being blindly anti-nuclear. The world's insurance companies are not run by dummies who are swayed by emotional opposition to technology. But from 1945 on, the insurance companies have told the world's governments they cannot cover nuclear plants. The liability is too large for them to consider, even with a "pool" spreading the liability to every major insurance company. Nuclear power is the only industry on earth that cannot be privately insured. Liability is covered by governments. Some experts estimate that a major accident might cost $1 trillion. These are genuine experts, not hysterical antinuclear Luddites. This is the best illustration of what I said before, that nuclear power is an all-or-nothing proposition. ". . . the following recent thread on Slashdot offers some insight... if you have the time... as those bits of insight are scattered amongst 500 or so highly charged opinions, many reactionary . . . Goodness. It certainly does excite emotions and opposition. Alternatives such as wind farm are much less controversial. Some of the people writing these comments say that wind is not a practical alternative to nuclear power. They are correct; it is not practical at the moment, but I believe it could be made practical at less cost than building 600 new nuclear reactors in the U.S. (That is approximately how many we would need to supplant both oil and coal.) Neither approach seems very practical to me, and both would take a long time. Alternative approaches in such as radically improved telecommuting facilities, carpooling and improved automobile mileage could be implemented almost overnight. There is still so much inefficiency in the U.S., with things like incandescent light bulbs, that conservation remains far cheaper and faster to implement than new power plants would be. To give one literally blinding example, most of the light from streetlights in the US is wasted. It either points into the sky or directly into the drivers' eyes. It obliterates starlight, disturbs people's sleep, and harms nocturnal species. There is no evidence that the intense use of streetlights reduces crime or increases automobile safety. We would all be better off if this use of energy were reduced by half. It would improve the quality of life. Traffic stoplights are another example of egregious waste. As they burn out, they should all be replaced by LED lights. These are widely used in New England, but nowhere else in the U.S. that I am aware of. Not only do they use far less energy, they last much longer. Replacing traffic lights is dangerous work, that ties up traffic. Burned out traffic lights are common in Atlanta and they can be a menace to drivers. "As to the claim that 'the public doesn't support nuclear energy', I see this as a temporary matter requiring re-education, and not a major policy consideration. . . ." I am a big fan of the public, but one must admit it is remarkably resistant to education in most subjects. Most people do not believe in evolution, after all. The public judges things by intuition, not informed knowledge. That is human nature. There is no replacement public waiting in the wings, so we must accommodate the public we have. "The most curious thing in all of this, to me, is that the fission issue comes juxtaposed to those recent enigmatic comments of Hoagland about CF in the context of fissile fuel and the DoE. Personally, I find almost nothing that Hoagland says believable, but nevertheless a few of us on vortex for many years have been suggesting that the consistent and arrogant pretense of ‘official neglect' for CF, in the face of increasingly positive experimental results, probably relates to non-proliferation issues that are only known to a select few (MIT?) and are being hidden (from the scientific community and even hidden from some government lab personnel like at China Lake and even LLNL)." The only thing along these lines that I am aware of is recent transmutation work by John Dash, which Jones cited in the message he sent after this, "further note." He wonders: "Oops. Why wasn't this research classified, confiscated, cleansed, marginalized and removed and obliterated from the public record?" It was marginalized. "I guess that missing this kind of thing is an unintended result of ‘official neglect’ by the science police…." I think they are too busy to notice. I am not aware of any cold fusion research has been classified, confiscated or cleansed. It has been ridiculed and ignored. The people in the government, the APS, and elsewhere who oppose it are honestly convinced that it is nonsense and fraud. As Steve Krivit discovered, few of them have read any papers published after the spring of 1989, so they know nothing about the subject. In the mid-1980s Martin Fleischmann urged some of his friends in high places to classify cold fusion. All in all, with reservations, I am glad he failed. Gene Mallove expressed many fears that cold fusion might be used for terrorism. I hope he was wrong. Even if CF does contribute to terrorism, it may also be useful in antiterrorist tools, such as autonomous long-range flying observation drones. Also, I think terrorists prefer simple, low-tech, ready made off-the-shelf weapons, such as fully fueled airplanes or surplus Russian nuclear bombs. Reportedly, Russian bombs and vast quantities of discarded weapon and reactor grade uranium is available at a steep discount, on cash and carry terms. Japanese television recently showed an abandoned shipyard near Vladivostok, with empty warehouses full of nuclear debris and rusting machinery, and about a dozen half-sunken, abandoned nuclear submarines. Anyone can walk in and haul the stuff away; it is literally lying around, and there are no guards in sight. The problem is, if you spend more than a few hours in the building without extensive protective clothing you will die of radiation exposure. That is why are there are no guards: they died, and the local people say no one else wants the job. Radioactive glop from these sites is spreading throughout the Sea of Japan and threatening Japanese food supplies. Japanese experts said it is probably best that the abandoned submarines are half sunk, since water is a good moderator, and being underwater makes it a little harder for people to go inside the submarines to scavenge equipment and radioactive garbage. Most of the reactor cores were removed and taken elsewhere. It was a little unclear where. Before 9/11, the US was embarked on a concerted program to dispose of these weapons and improve the security of Russian weapons dumps and abandoned submarines. (The Japanese government has now taken over some of these responsibilities.) I have heard the weapons dumps are often guarded by a drunk night watchman and a rusting barbed wire fence. Unfortunately, funding for this program has been cut back to pay for homeland security, the $238 billion anti-missile program, and the war in Iraq. This is not very rational, but as I said, irrationality is the human condition. Things like this should worry people more than the prospect of transmuted U from CF experiments. NOTE. The estimated cost of the anti-missile program is from MIT, reported in the Boston Globe. See: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0304-01.htm - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 13:29:43 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51KTbbb020646; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:29:37 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51KTahv020626; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:29:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:29:36 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <40BCE746.7000801@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:29:58 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New Scientist reports reactor safety concerns---- a rebuttal References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040601141252.00b23590@mail.lenr-canr.org> In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040601141252.00b23590@mail.lenr-canr.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54687 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > There is still so much inefficiency in the U.S., with things like > incandescent light bulbs, that conservation remains far cheaper and > faster to implement than new power plants would be. To give one > literally blinding example, most of the light from streetlights in the > US is wasted. It either points into the sky or directly into the > drivers' eyes. It obliterates starlight, disturbs people's sleep, and > harms nocturnal species. There is no evidence that the intense use of > streetlights reduces crime or increases automobile safety. We would > all be better off if this use of energy were reduced by half. It would > improve the quality of life. Traffic stoplights are another example of > egregious waste. As they burn out, they should all be replaced by LED > lights. These are widely used in New England, but nowhere else in the > U.S. that I am aware of. Not only do they use far less energy, they > last much longer. Replacing traffic lights is dangerous work, that > ties up traffic. Burned out traffic lights are common in Atlanta and > they can be a menace to drivers. You're a little behind the times on this one, Jed. A nationwide program for traffic signal replacement is underway and will be almost complete by the end of 2005. http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/1103/02bright.html I have replaced all my incandescent bulbs with flourescent at home. If the referenced article is right, I'll soon be replacing those with LED lamps. Also, have you looked at the latest street lighting? Check I-85 north of I-285 for example. Highly directional lighting has been a highway engineering directive for some time (AASHTO 1984) http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/97095/ch02/body_ch02_04.html. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 13:42:13 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51KfupP016061; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:41:56 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51Kfnx7015999; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:41:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:41:49 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040601154438.0202e3c8@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:41:47 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: You could conserve AND build nuclear plants, but . . . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <0m2ui.A.25D.NoOvAB@ultra5.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54688 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Regarding nuclear plants or a massive wind-farm project, I wrote: "Neither approach seems very practical to me, and both would take a long time. Alternative approaches in such as radically improved telecommuting facilities, carpooling and improved automobile mileage could be implemented almost overnight." Of course you could do both. You might replace millions of incandescent light bulbs and build telecommuting facilities, while at the same time you build dozens of new nuclear plants. The US has enough money to do that. (We could probably do that while we spend $238 billion on an anti-missile system that will not work, along with $271 billion to enrich agribusiness and promote obesity.) The problem is, after you install those lightbulbs and offices, you no longer need the nuclear plants. They will not make a profit. No industry executive outside of Enron would build them. California will probably soon have many surplus power plants, gathering dust and costing large sums in interest payments. These are mainly state-of-the-art gas-fired plants built in response to the nonexistent power crisis. They may have some value to society, if older coal-fired plants are phased out sooner than originally scheduled. But that is not assured, given the strange distortions of the energy market. Wind farms may be retired instead, because they are marginally more expensive than old coal fired plants, since no one takes into account the cost of damage, ill health and misery caused by coal pollution or global warming. Given the topsy-turvy nature of the US energy policy, if you built 100 new nuclear plants, while at the same time you replaced streetlights, stoplights and home lighting with state-of-the-art equipment, you might end up with dozens of excess nuclear plants, while older coal fired plants still fouled the air. In other words, a little sane policy and cost-accounting would probably do as much good as several dozen clever energy innovations. In any case, electricity is comparatively clean. Oil used for transportation is a bigger problem. It causes much more pollution and global warming per joule of expended energy, and more instability, war and terrorism. Nuclear power plants cannot solve the transportation problem without a breakthrough in batteries, or a gigantic hydrogen infrastructure and improved fuel cells. Huge amounts of money have been spent on battery research, with little success. Cold fusion may seem impractical and distant, but for all anyone knows, if we were to spend the same amount per year on CF that we now spend on battery research, rapid progress might be made. We might find that we can solve the energy crisis with CF sooner than we can with improved batteries and nuclear power plants. Ten years after the discovery of the transistor, researchers said they had more detailed knowledge and better control over the devices than they had achieved after 30 years of research into vacuum tubes. (I think it was 10 years; this was recounted somewhere in "Crystal Fire.") No one has given CF a fair chance. For all anyone knows, a crash program in CF might produce half our energy in 15 or 20 years. If it did work, I am sure the cost would be orders of magnitude cheaper than building nuclear reactors or wind farms. The energy crisis would be swept aside as quickly as polio was eradicated in the U.S. by the Sabin vaccine. This is not utopianism. For all anyone knows, CF might be made practical with only a few hundred million dollars. After all, CF researchers have made remarkable progress with $0 per year. Even a few million could make a tremendous impact. The U.S. uses 371 million gallons of gasoline per day. At $1.70 per gallon that costs $630 million per day, so a few million for CF is no big deal. Perhaps CF would swallow up years of research and billions of dollars with little return on investment, the way battery research and high-temperature superconductor R&D have done. It might even swallow up billions with no return on investment, the way hot fusion has done. It is impossible to predict. But it is certainly worth the risk and the expense to find out. Politics and hysterical opposition have prevented CF research, but we may yet overcome them. Gasoline at $4 per gallon might help us do that. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 14:07:41 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51L7XpP023277; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:07:33 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51L7VP9023250; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:07:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:07:31 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040601165041.0205cda8@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:07:30 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Progress in un-lighting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54689 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton writes: > You're a little behind the times on this one, Jed. A nationwide program > for traffic signal replacement is underway and will be almost complete > by the end of 2005. > > http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/1103/02bright.html I am delighted to learn I am behind the times on this! Most of the time I and others talk about these things for years before the officials get around to taking action. > Also, have you looked at the latest street lighting? Check I-85 north > of I-285 for example. Highly directional lighting has been a highway > engineering directive for some time (AASHTO 1984) > > http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/97095/ch02/body_ch02_04.html. I have heard about this one. But more action on residential and parking lot lighting is needed. There has been progress. The Los Angeles night sky is darker that it was 10 years ago. There is a do-gooder organization devoted to this problem, naturally: http://www.darksky.org/ In other countries people struggle to pay for kerosene illumination, and they can barely afford enough food. In the U.S. we suffer from too much light and too much food! It is a strange world. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 14:11:37 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51LBRpP024182; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:11:27 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51LBQcL024157; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:11:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:11:26 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:16:01 -0600 From: "R. Wormus" Reply-To: "R. Wormus" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Reactor safety Message-ID: <35324515.1086102961@localhost> In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040601141252.00b23590@mail.lenr-canr.org> References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040601141252.00b23590@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54690 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Vorts, Here is an interesting link showing the current state of the countryside = around the chernobyl reactor.=20 http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm As an engineer who once worked around GE BWR's I think safety concerns over = fission plants are completely rational. The Canadian CANDU design is one of = the the safest. Ron From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 1 14:27:54 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51LRmbb005056; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:27:49 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i51LRlQ5005027; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:27:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:27:47 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040601172551.032e6568@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:28:12 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Ron's message as a message Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54691 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: [R. Wormus posted the following as an attachment instead of a message, for some reason. This is another example of an expert expressing rational concern about nuclear safety. - JR] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Here is an interesting link showing the current state of the countryside around the chernobyl reactor. http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm As an engineer who once worked around GE BWR's I think safety concerns over fission plants are completely rational. The Canadian CANDU design is one of the the safest. Ron From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 2 03:08:22 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i52A8Hgn010192; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 03:08:18 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i52A85Lp010144; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 03:08:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 03:08:05 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f X-UNTD-OriginStamp: PuRpSoKrQ4GXGg1mfox2kTCs9s4tRa+rFRW7hrxVVWdajLhtyoLftg== To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 17:05:43 -0500 Subject: an equal and opposite reactor Message-ID: <20040602.170544.-123901.2.wardsworld@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3,5-12,14-25,27-29,31,33-34,36,38-40,42,44-48,50-52,54,56-57,59-65 From: Ward Johanson Resent-Message-ID: <8ktruD.A.YeC.FcavAB@ultra6.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54692 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: interesting. France does not seem to have the same waste disposal problem because the waste is used again, instead of being treated as atomic weapons waiting to fall into the hands of desparate rednecks, commies, Iraqis, etc. Can't recall how the waste is used... France would be a perfect nation if the women would just shave their pits.... Thank you, Joe May If appropriate, you may share this message with others. > 80% of the electricity in France > > comes from nuclear and the oldest nuclear plant in operation ( 30 years > > in July 2004) is a fast breeder PHENIX ( 165 MWe ). The stop of > > SUPERPHENIX (1200MWe) on 1996 was only due to fallacious political reason > > . . . > > I do not know anything about that. The U.S. and Japanese > breeder reactor > programs were fiascos. Years ago I saw a documentary that explained some interesting differences concerning how France and the United States approached the building of nuclear power utilities. What stuck in my head was how France had chosen to follow a standardization procedure that was far more strict than how our country went about constructing nuclear power plants. If I remember the documentary correctly, France essentially agreed to use a SINGLE engineering model design, one that worked reasonably well for them. I think France chose to abide by stricter regulatory controls in the building of Nuclear facilities. France used the same engineering designs over and over. One of the major advantages for following this methodology was that it turned out to be considerably cheaper to build additional nuclear plants than in the United States. There were fewer unknowns that had to be contended with. France probably also ended up with a better knowledge base of what each of their plant's strong and weak points would be since they were all designed from the same engineering template. The United States, on the other hand, approached the building of each Nuclear Power plant as if each one was a biblical act of creation. The ideals of Capitalism were supposed to drive how each plant would be built, and presumably in the most efficient cost effective way possible. Unfortunately, what actually happened was that each facility tended to be redesigned from scratch by the "lowest winning bidder". Engineers hired by the winning contractors rarely took advantage of tried and true designs that had already been worked out in the building of previous plants. Our own Yankee-can-do & individualistic desire to build the cheapest most efficient nuclear power facilities may have, in truth, backfired on us in the worst way. Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 2 05:28:19 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i52CSC9B024318; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 05:28:12 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i52CS90c024279; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 05:28:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 05:28:09 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <2.2.32.20040602132805.006a6d5c@pop.freeserve.net> X-Sender: grimer2.freeserve.co.uk@pop.freeserve.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:28:05 +0000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Grimer Subject: Re: an equal and opposite reactor Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54693 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Years ago I saw a documentary that explained some interesting differences >concerning how France and the United States approached the building of >nuclear power utilities. What stuck in my head was how France had chosen >to follow a standardization procedure that was far more strict than how our >country went about constructing nuclear power plants. If I remember the >documentary correctly, France essentially agreed to use a SINGLE >engineering model design, one that worked reasonably well for them. >I think France chose >to abide by stricter regulatory controls in the >building of Nuclear facilities. France used the same engineering designs >over and over. >One of the major advantages for following this methodology was that it >turned out to be considerably cheaper to build additional nuclear plants >than in the United States. There were fewer unknowns that had to be >contended with. France probably also ended up with a better knowledge base of what each of their plant's strong and weak points would be since they were all designed from the same engineering template. >The United States, on the other hand, approached the building of each >Nuclear Power plant as if each one was a biblical act of creation. The >ideals of Capitalism were supposed to drive how each plant would be >built, and presumably in the most efficient cost effective way possible. >Unfortunately, what actually happened was that each facility tended to be >redesigned from scratch by the "lowest winning bidder". Engineers hired >by the winning contractors rarely took advantage of tried and true designs >that had already been worked out in the building of previous plants. Our own >Yankee-can-do & individualistic desire to build the cheapest most >efficient nuclear power facilities may have, in truth, backfired on us >in the worst way. > >Steven Vincent Johnson >www.OrionWorks.com A big advantage of a standardized design is that one gains from the feedback of any problems that might occur. I think it was Herman Bondi who pointed out that the 8 British AGRs didn't have this advantage since they were a relatively small population. The same kind of considerations applied to the Concord(e) fleet of supersonic airliners. Frank Grimer From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 2 07:04:18 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i52E499B018284; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 07:04:09 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i52E47Ud018262; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 07:04:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 07:04:07 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <20040602140349.11320.qmail@web81108.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 07:03:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: You could conserve AND build nuclear plants, but . . . To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040601154438.0202e3c8@mail.lenr-canr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-188820678-1086185029=:10606" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54694 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --0-188820678-1086185029=:10606 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Jed Rothwell wrote: “Regarding nuclear plants or a massive wind-farm project, I wrote: "Neither approach seems very practical to me, and both would take a long time. Alternative approaches in such as radically improved telecommuting facilities, carpooling and improved automobile mileage could be implemented almost overnight." “Of course you could do both" Or maximize both conservation and shift the focus of energy R&D now. Every contributing factor to conserve energy is important, and every potential energy source should be reconsidered when the variable change as much as they have recently. No matter how one weighs-in on the issue of nuclear energy, almost everyone agrees that IF… in a fair and unbiased appraisal, nuclear fission is deemed to be the best option for our future circumstances, then it should be a new an improved version – not the antiquated reactor designs we have at present. And most cross-comparisons by nuclear skeptics employ the most costly and inefficient nuclear plant as the basis of their skepticism. Many of the past objections to fission might change if we demonstrate that the excellent new ideas being floated around in the various journals are feasible - if not for us, then for use by Third World nations as they emerge as large consumers of electrical energy. That benefits us undirectly. Unfortunately, most ‘official’ advanced reactor designs seem pitifully deficient, as it seems that the US has been brainwashed into opting for using enriched fuel rather than natural uranium. This is because of an entrenched infrastructure and outdated notions about proliferation issue. The following thoughts probably will not make it to the ears of anyone important – but I hope that someone with a modicum of good sense will attempt to stimulate the imagination of some of those Peter-principled dimwits in DoE. Without getting into all the many problems of the present reactor designs, it is still possible to paint a picture of what features would constitute the most acceptable compromise, assuming we had no other good choice but to use nuclear fission in the future (yes, we all still hold out the hope for LENR, but just in case it doesn't pan out), and assuming that we wanted to ‘do-it-right’ this time and overcome numerous old engineering problems and integrate new technologies quickly. Here are a few of the issues and the compromises involved from the perspective of an outsider who is admittedly oftentimes overly optimistic about the ability of the best conceivable technology to find its way into real systems: 1) Fuel – natural vs. enriched. This is seemingly a no-brainer, except that to do it right it will require #2 below. If you can redesign enriched fuel OUT of the system, then of course use natural fuel. We never did this in the US and are stuck with costly systems. The Canadians have done it with CANDU, which has its own set of ingrained problems but there are a number of advanced alternatives. 2) Limited on-site continuous fuel processing. This is a necessity for an optimum design and it does NOT increase the proliferation risk if done correctly. It is not total reprocessing but a continuous, fairly low-tech removal of some of the fission ash. The huge fringe benefit is that it will allow a much higher burn rate and allow the operator to get about 50 times more energy per Kg of mined U than present methods. 3) Critical or subcritical? Don’t laugh, a nominally subcritical reactor is possible, but because it will demand a high multiplication factor, it will still require most of the expense of present-day safety equipment. But the rationale is psychological, making it subcritical is important psychological – even if it is subcritical-by-design (rather than subcritical by fuel inventory). In fact the natural U fuel inventory per unit of power produced could be a factor of four higher than current designs, but actual U consumed over its lifetime could still be a factor of 50 less - because of lack of enrichment, more complete burn-up (esp. with breeding) and fewer fuel changes. 4) Conversion scheme – steam or direct conversion. Steam conversion should be abandoned – plain and simple. Thermionic conversion is the answer. This goes arm and arm with what I believe is the major but often overlooked risk factor in present reactor design: high pressure. 5) Pressurization – A pressurized reactor is nothing less than a bomb, in the unlikely event it ruptures. The #1 issue for any new design should be to go as close to unpressurized as possible - using thermionics. The HTGR is still high pressure, even if it is helium rather than steam. 6) Site location – can we design a supersafe reactor that can be sited nearer to population centers? Yes, if we go underground with a smaller air-cooled subcritical fission/fusion or accelerator-driven fission design. 7) Breeding fissile fuel? Would possibly be unnecessary with continuous reprocessing, but still needed for the best compromise solution (fewer refuelings and higher burnup) – one version of the fusion/fission, or accelerator driven design has limited on-site, continuous reprocessing system for easy removal of some fraction of the ash, and immediate addition of some bred fuel. No enriched fissile material would be stored and no real fuel change would ever be needed in the doubled lifetime which is possible with an unpressurized reactor. 8) Related Cost factors: a.) When you use natural U fuel–with limited continuous on-site reprocessing then the lifetime cost of the power produced is reduced by at least half, compared with enriched fuel. Many older reactors in the US now cost more to refuel than they cost to build. With continued inflation, that scenario will remain with us. b.) If you can use an unpressurized reactor and no cooling towers, you eliminate the huge cost factors and the initial capital cost of the reactor can be reduced by more than half, all else being equal. And your safety margin goes up exponentially as a fringe benefit. If you can go unpressurized and use a very low inventory of heavy water, then your capital costs are extremely low by comparison. c.) Efficiency – this factor is not as important when using natural U fuel, as fuel costs become de minimis – but heat rejection is the real issue. For present day plants those huge cooling towers are fully one-quarter of the total cost of the plant. Air or gas cooling doesn’t work well when steam is used - but can work well with non-Carnot schemes like thermionic conversion. d.) Make-up neutrons – cannot be provided by “large” accelerator driven (Rubbia scheme of GeV accelerator) due to cost. Several small accelerators (so-called table-top design), are ideal for the make-up neutrons with one required “extra” e.) If you can use thermionic conversion with gas-cooling of the collectors, then steam conversion is unnecessary and plant size and cost are greatly reduced. Since you have gone non-Carnot, your collectors can remain relatively ‘hot’ so low pressure gas cooling is feasible. 9) Can all of these factors be accommodated in one design? Maybe. The obvious objection is that thermionic conversion has not been utilized in a reactor before. But I have seen no good argument why it can’t be incorporated relatively soon if we had the political will-power to do it - all the underlying technology has been proven in principle. Many people have their own pet compound schemes. This is one which has been partially suggested by others including Carlo Rubbia (who seems surprisingly ignorant of the range of options available, and the costs involved, for such a supposedly smart guy) but he loves big accelerators. At any rate, the answers are out there, but the brain-power - at least the creativity - seems to be 'long gone' from the American nuclear industry. We can't really blame that one on 'big-oil' - they just benefitted from the lack of foresight at DoE, which has become the black-hole for ineptitude in our political bureaucracy, going back decades. Jones --0-188820678-1086185029=:10606 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Jed Rothwell  wrote:

“Regarding nuclear plants or a massive wind-farm project, I wrote:

 

"Neither approach seems very practical to me, and both would take a long time. Alternative approaches in such as radically improved telecommuting facilities, carpooling and improved automobile mileage could be implemented almost overnight."

 

“Of course you could do both"

 

Or maximize both conservation and shift the focus of energy R&D now. Every contributing factor to conserve energy is important, and every potential energy source should be reconsidered when the variable change as much as they have recently.

 

No matter how one weighs-in on the issue of nuclear energy, almost everyone agrees that IF… in a fair and unbiased appraisal, nuclear fission is deemed to be the best option for our future circumstances, then it should be a new an improved version – not the antiquated reactor designs we have at present. And most cross-comparisons by nuclear skeptics employ the most costly and inefficient nuclear plant as the basis of their skepticism.

 

Many of the past objections to fission might change if we demonstrate that the excellent new ideas being floated around in the various journals are feasible - if not for us, then for use by Third World nations as they emerge as large consumers of electrical energy. That benefits us undirectly.

 

Unfortunately, most ‘official’ advanced reactor designs seem pitifully deficient, as it seems that the US has been brainwashed into opting for using enriched fuel rather than natural uranium. This is because of an entrenched infrastructure and outdated notions about proliferation issue. The following thoughts probably will not make it to the ears of anyone important – but I hope that someone with a modicum of good sense will attempt to stimulate the imagination of some of those Peter-principled dimwits in DoE.

 

Without getting into all the many problems of the present reactor designs, it is still possible to paint a picture of what features would constitute the most acceptable compromise, assuming we had no other good choice but to use nuclear fission in the future (yes, we all still hold out the hope for LENR, but just in case it doesn't pan out), and assuming that we wanted to ‘do-it-right’ this time and overcome numerous old engineering problems and integrate new technologies quickly.

 

Here are a few of the issues and the compromises involved from the perspective of an outsider who is admittedly oftentimes overly optimistic about the ability of the best conceivable technology to find its way into real systems:

1)     Fuel – natural vs. enriched. This is seemingly a no-brainer, except that to do it right it will require #2 below. If you can redesign enriched fuel OUT of the system, then of course use natural fuel. We never did this in the US and are stuck with costly systems. The Canadians have done it with CANDU, which has its own set of ingrained problems but there are a number of advanced alternatives.

2)     Limited on-site continuous fuel processing. This is a necessity for an optimum design and it does NOT increase the proliferation risk if done correctly. It is not total reprocessing but a continuous, fairly low-tech removal of some of the fission ash. The huge fringe benefit is that it will allow a much higher burn rate and allow the operator to get about 50 times more energy per Kg of mined U than present methods.

3)     Critical or subcritical? Don’t laugh, a nominally subcritical reactor is possible, but because it will demand a high multiplication factor, it will still require most of the expense of present-day safety equipment. But the rationale is psychological, making it subcritical is important psychological – even if it is subcritical-by-design (rather than subcritical by fuel inventory). In fact the natural U fuel inventory per unit of power produced could be a factor of four higher than current designs, but actual U consumed over its lifetime could still be a factor of 50 less - because of lack of enrichment, more complete burn-up (esp. with breeding) and fewer fuel changes.

4)     Conversion scheme – steam or direct conversion. Steam conversion should be abandoned – plain and simple. Thermionic conversion is the answer. This goes arm and arm with what I believe is the major but often overlooked risk factor in present reactor design: high pressure.

5)     Pressurization – A pressurized reactor is nothing less than a bomb, in the unlikely event it ruptures. The #1 issue for any new design should be to go as close to unpressurized as possible - using thermionics. The HTGR is still high pressure, even if it is helium rather than steam.

6)     Site location – can we design a supersafe reactor that can be sited nearer to population centers? Yes, if we go underground with a smaller air-cooled subcritical fission/fusion or accelerator-driven fission design.

7)     Breeding fissile fuel? Would possibly be unnecessary with continuous reprocessing, but still needed for the best compromise solution (fewer refuelings and higher burnup) – one version of the fusion/fission, or accelerator driven design has limited on-site, continuous reprocessing system for easy removal of some fraction of the ash, and immediate addition of some bred fuel. No enriched fissile material would be stored and no real fuel change would ever be needed in the doubled lifetime which is possible with an unpressurized reactor.

8)     Related Cost factors:

a.)   When you use natural U fuel–with limited continuous on-site reprocessing then the lifetime cost of the power produced is reduced by at least half, compared with enriched fuel. Many older reactors in the US now cost more to refuel than they cost to build. With continued inflation, that scenario will remain with us.

b.)   If you can use an unpressurized reactor and no cooling towers, you eliminate the huge cost factors and the initial capital cost of the reactor can be reduced by more than half, all else being equal. And your safety margin goes up exponentially as a fringe benefit. If you can go unpressurized and use a very low inventory of heavy water, then your capital costs are extremely low by comparison.

c.)   Efficiency – this factor is not as important when using natural U fuel, as fuel costs become de minimis – but heat rejection is the real issue. For present day plants those huge cooling towers are fully one-quarter of the total cost of the plant. Air or gas cooling doesn’t work well when steam is used  - but can work well with non-Carnot schemes like thermionic conversion.

d.)   Make-up neutrons – cannot be provided by “large” accelerator driven (Rubbia scheme of GeV accelerator) due to cost. Several small accelerators (so-called table-top design), are ideal for the make-up neutrons with one required “extra”

e.)   If you can use thermionic conversion with gas-cooling of the collectors, then steam conversion is unnecessary and plant size and cost are greatly reduced. Since you have gone non-Carnot, your collectors can remain relatively ‘hot’ so low pressure gas cooling is feasible.

9)     Can all of these factors be accommodated in one design?

 

Maybe. The obvious objection is that thermionic conversion has not been utilized in a reactor before. But I have seen no good argument why it can’t be incorporated relatively soon if we had the political will-power to do it - all the underlying technology has been proven in principle. Many people have their own pet compound schemes. This is one which has been partially suggested by others including Carlo Rubbia (who seems surprisingly ignorant of the range of options available, and the costs involved, for such a supposedly smart guy) but he loves big accelerators.

 

At any rate, the answers are out there, but the brain-power - at least the creativity - seems to be 'long gone' from the American nuclear industry.

 

We can't really blame that one on 'big-oil' - they just benefitted from the lack of foresight at DoE, which has become the black-hole for ineptitude in our political bureaucracy, going back decades.

 

Jones

 

 

--0-188820678-1086185029=:10606-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 2 09:29:40 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i52GTT9B003490; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 09:29:30 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i52GTJNT003451; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 09:29:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 09:29:19 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040602111249.02050e18@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:38:37 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: You could conserve AND build nuclear plants, but . . . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ultra5.eskimo.com id i52GTE9B003415 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54695 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene has many interesting ideas about advanced reactor designs. Many of these ideas are new to me. He writes: "Or maximize both conservation and shift the focus of energy R&D now. Every contributing factor to conserve energy is important, and every potential energy source should be reconsidered when the variable change as much as they have recently." That is the best approach. I think we should emphasize conservation though, because it is cheaper, faster, and it also reduces pollution more effectively. "No matter how one weighs-in on the issue of nuclear energy, almost everyone agrees that IF… in a fair and unbiased appraisal, nuclear fission is deemed to be the best option for our future circumstances, then it should be a new an improved version ­ not the antiquated reactor designs we have at present." A very important point. The comparison I made earlier to wind energy was somewhat unfair by this standard. I said that wind is presently six times cheaper than nuclear power per KW of capacity. (Gas turbines are about half the price of wind turbines.) I am comparing present-day wind turbines to present-day nuclear reactors. Both will grow cheaper, but the gap may close somewhat. Nuclear reactors are so hideously expensive, the price may decline faster than wind turbines if safer designs can be developed. "Unfortunately, most ‘official’ advanced reactor designs seem pitifully deficient . . . but I hope that someone with a modicum of good sense will attempt to stimulate the imagination of some of those Peter-principled dimwits in DoE." No doubt the DOE bears a large share of the blame, but nuclear reactors are designed and built by industry, and industry has tremendous influence over government, especially with this administration. The administration has been trying to encourage the power companies, GE and others to develop a new generation of advanced reactors, but so far industry has shown no interest in doing so. There has been innovation and clear thinking within the DOE. A good example is R. A. Krakowski et al., "Lessons Learned from the Tokamak Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study (ARIES)," Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-UR-93-4217, December 8, 1993. Along the same lines, we often complain about the role the DOE has played in suppressing and ignoring cold fusion. We should ask, where has private industry been all these years? Nothing has prevented industrial corporations from researching CF. Corporations are not controlled by the DOE. Most are not even enamored of it; they mainly ignore it. The cost of CF experiments is so small it barely registers, and the potential payback is beyond calculation. We often say that CF demonstrates the inability of government agencies to innovate. Just as clearly, it demonstrates that capitalism sometimes fails drastically, for no apparent reason. I think the problem goes deeper. It is caused by human nature, not only by our present institutions. Human nature may also rescue cold fusion, if anything will. Strictly from a business point of view, cold fusion research is a losing proposition, especially for someone like Mizuno. Instincts and dreams drive him to continue despite opposition, great personal sacrifice, and slim chances of reward or profit. "4) Conversion scheme ­ steam or direct conversion. Steam conversion should be abandoned ­ plain and simple. Thermionic conversion is the answer." I think it is much too expensive at present. If we had reasonably priced thermionic devices, we would not need any new nuclear, coal or gas-fired power plants for a long time. We could retrofit present reactors to scavenge more of the waste heat, and increase average efficiency from 30% to perhaps 50%. I read somewhere recently about an add-on system for two-stage generation. It extracts heat from used, low-pressure steam. It uses a liquid with a low boiling point -- I do not recall what. At present this would be a lot cheaper than thermionic devices. It could increase the efficiency of existing, conventional steam generators up to around 50 or 60%, about the same as an advanced gas turbine. "6) Site location ­ can we design a supersafe reactor that can be sited nearer to population centers? Yes, if we go underground with a smaller air-cooled subcritical fission/fusion or accelerator-driven fission design." That's a clever idea! It may be expensive. But I have heard that the cost of large-scale excavation has fallen a great deal in recent years. This is partly thanks to the Big Dig project in Boston, that went way overbudget but did advance the state-of-the-art. This is another example of how we should -- with reservations -- thank big government for technological progress. As I have often pointed out, the list of major innovations that were either invented by the government or paid for it is very long, and it includes things such as steamships, computers, the Internet, and cold fusion. I believe both the University of Southamption and U. Utah are both public institutions, paid for from taxes. So are Texas A&M, Hokkaido University, Los Alamos, China Lake, and most other institutions that have sponsored important CF research. Governments have done much to discourage and oppose CF, but so have private industry and pseudo-private organizations such as the APS. Government has also made vital contributions to the research, whereas private industry and the APS have contributed practically nothing. "We can't really blame that one on 'big-oil' - they just benefitted from the lack of foresight at DoE, which has become the black-hole for ineptitude in our political bureaucracy, going back decades." It isn't just the DoE, as I said. For that matter, it isn't just the U.S. What have Japan, the U.K., France or Italy contributed? What did Canada do after the CANDU reactor? Their corporations have plenty of money and they might have developed better fission reactors. As far as I know, the only country that has done innovative research in this area is Germany, with pebble bed reactors. The French have developed good-quality reactors, but the design is not innovative. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 2 13:06:33 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i52K6M9B010860; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:06:23 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i52K66YM010776; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:06:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:06:06 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f From: Standing Bear To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: an equal and opposite reactor Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:45:26 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <20040602.170544.-123901.2.wardsworld@juno.com> In-Reply-To: <20040602.170544.-123901.2.wardsworld@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200406021645.26203.rockcast@earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54696 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wednesday 02 June 2004 18:05, Ward Johanson wrote: > interesting. France does not seem to have the same waste disposal problem > because the waste is used again, instead of being treated as atomic > weapons waiting to fall into the hands of desparate rednecks, commies, > Iraqis, etc. Can't recall how the waste is used... > France would be a perfect nation if the women would just shave their > pits.... > > Thank you, > Joe May > > If appropriate, you may share this message with others. > > > 80% of the electricity in France > > > > > comes from nuclear and the oldest nuclear plant in operation ( 30 > > years > > > > in July 2004) is a fast breeder PHENIX ( 165 MWe ). The stop of > > > SUPERPHENIX (1200MWe) on 1996 was only due to fallacious political > > reason > > > > . . . > > > > I do not know anything about that. The U.S. and Japanese > > breeder reactor > > programs were fiascos. > > Years ago I saw a documentary that explained some interesting differences > concerning how France and the United States approached the building of > nuclear power utilities. What stuck in my head was how France had chosen > to > follow a standardization procedure that was far more strict than how our > country went about constructing nuclear power plants. If I remember the > documentary correctly, France essentially agreed to use a SINGLE > engineering > model design, one that worked reasonably well for them. I think France > chose > to abide by stricter regulatory controls in the building of Nuclear > facilities. France used the same engineering designs over and over. One > of > the major advantages for following this methodology was that it turned > out > to be considerably cheaper to build additional nuclear plants than in the > United States. There were fewer unknowns that had to be contended with. > France probably also ended up with a better knowledge base of what each > of > their plant's strong and weak points would be since they were all > designed > from the same engineering template. > > The United States, on the other hand, approached the building of each > Nuclear Power plant as if each one was a biblical act of creation. The > ideals of Capitalism were supposed to drive how each plant would be > built, > and presumably in the most efficient cost effective way possible. > Unfortunately, what actually happened was that each facility tended to be > redesigned from scratch by the "lowest winning bidder". Engineers hired > by > the winning contractors rarely took advantage of tried and true designs > that > had already been worked out in the building of previous plants. Our own > Yankee-can-do & individualistic desire to build the cheapest most > efficient > nuclear power facilities may have, in truth, backfired on us in the worst > way. > > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com A very big AMEN! to that! I have been saying for many years that we needed standard designs for reactors. Even our ex president Carter said that as well.....even if he did flunk out of nuke power school while in the navy and had a dislike for nuke power ever since. Trouble is, Carter did not put this idea into practice. Instead, a bureaucracy took over that simply let ongoing processes slide. A single standard design small reactor, built everywhere, would supply our needs nicely. We could then train people to service them who actually could. This would require tossing out on their ears the hot dogs and glory hounds that wanted to stretch materials science to the breaking point of the taxpayers in building the largest and most daring from a science point of view facility. A case in point is Rancho Seco in California not far from Sacramento. Beautiful place! Horrible design of its turbine! That hunk of metal was designed using 'plastic design engineering'. Its weight and clearances were such that the thing would sag and destroy itself if allowed to slow down too quickly. In practice, it lunched itself whenever it was shut down no matter how slowly the cool down procedure was. This was not a nuclear problem; it was an ego and stupidity problem. Human errror from the ground up with no check at the top. Standing Bear From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 2 13:17:17 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i52KGq9B015009; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:16:52 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i52KGnae014982; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:16:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:16:49 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <20040602201641.58779.qmail@web81105.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:16:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: You could conserve AND build nuclear plants, but . . . To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040602111249.02050e18@mail.lenr-canr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-688853291-1086207401=:58763" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54697 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --0-688853291-1086207401=:58763 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Jed Rothwell writes, (in response to a too hastily explained suggestion that): “Thermionic conversion is the answer” [for nuclear heat-to-electricity conversion]. JR: “I think it is much too expensive at present. If we had reasonably priced thermionic devices, we would not need any new nuclear, coal or gas-fired power plants for a long time. We could retrofit present reactors to scavenge more of the waste heat, and increase average efficiency from 30% to perhaps 50%.” Yes that kind of add-on thermionic system in not effective. Let me try to make this a little clearer, as the fission thermionic concept is probably not along the lines that you were thinking. This is not the combustion thermionic device, but is inherently designed into the fuel itself... Thermionic ‘topping’ devices have been around for at least forty years but they are not widely used now because the limitations of combustion keeps efficiency low. Therefore, it is easy to see why many will initially balk at a fission application because they are assuming that the supposed ‘low efficiency’ is the general case when in fact it is only a special case (combustion). Once they have been informed of the exploitable differences between the two underlying thermodynamic systems, the response is usually – wow – I should have thought of that. The situation is further complicated by the fact that there are presently nuclear thermionic devices in operation (for space applications) which do not employ the advantage that I will outline below, and are consequently also hindered by efficiency limitations. Please excuse the following overly simplistic explanation, but a few of the significant differences in fission derived -heat vs. combustion heat are not well recognized (unfortunately not even at DoE ;-) In the combustion of fossil fuels, only a small percentage of the total Btu’s which are released are available for conversion at the ‘high end’ of the spectrum i.e. over 2000 degrees F. where thermionic converters are efficient. Therefore, one can never get more than a small percentage of thermionic energy from combustion alone, even if the device itself was 100%. In contrast, in fission processes, the underlying reaction is almost ALL at the ‘high end’ (fission fragments releasing ~50 MeV each); therefore when one restrains low end heat rejection, then a significant efficiency gain is possible using thermionics alone – not as a topping cycle but as the sole conversion mechanism. In that regard, the system can be actually both cheaper and much more efficient than steam conversion. As for capital cost, even though you need a lot of zirconium metal for the collectors, etc. (this is really the only refractory metal that has low thermal neutron capture) the overall cost should be less than steam, as cooling towers are enormously expensive. The fuel in this conceptual design is in the form of singlet U-carbide pins, which serve double-duty as thermionic cathode emitters, each surrounded by both a grid and a thin tubular collector, making the arrangement look like a long thin triode, rather than a diode. You could analogize this by remembering what an old radio used to look like when you took off the cover: a forest of tubes. Only here the tubes are thinner and more numerous. Most of the required neutron moderator is external to the tube array- in the form of a thick carbon (graphite) blanket reflector. In this proposal, the cathode is the U fuel itself. Most thermionic devices are diode-type, but with nuclear, there are reasons to suspect that the triode will work much better. The reactor heat will either be carried away by black-body radiation or by “boiling-off” electrons (the Edison effect). Electrons carry off billions of times more heat/particle than radiation, so that even with the parasitic current drain of a high voltage grid, the overall system should be very efficient because there is no convective heat transfer at the low end. No convective heat rejection at the low-end of the energy spectrum is only possible when the fuel/cathode is in a near vacuum and the reaction itself is extremely energetic. Some heat does leave as blackbody radiation – a few tens of percent at most. Remember that the lower efficiency numbers that you have seen in textbooks for thermionic conversion are based on the assumption of combustion as the heat source - where the necessity of wide spectrum heat-rejection always limits efficiency significantly. The situation with fission can be engineered to be substantially different. The fuel itself in this proposal is always in a near-vacuum rather than in a potentially unstable high pressure, bomb-like environment (like the PWR). Since there is near zero heat removal by convection, a relatively small neutron flux (an order of magnitude below that of a PWR) will heat the pins sufficiently to about 2500 F, giving the reactor fuel a very long useful life between refueling, but requiring a higher initial fuel inventory for a given output (so what, if it is natural U). The irony being that the system can be subcritical-by-geometry or by design, rather than subcritical by fuel inventory and still have output in gigawatts. Because the collectors can be kept relatively hot, they can be gas cooled (ultimately air-cooled with a heat exchanger.) at low pressure, unlike the HTGR where hundreds of atms of pressure must be supplied by pumping. Complicated as this explanation seems, the overall system is much more complicated than what is offered here. But this concept has been gradually evolving since a first course in nuclear reactor design nearly forty years ago. If anyone on vortex is paying attention after all this verbiage, they probably have PhD level training in this field, which I do not, and they may choose to scoff at some of this as being too radical (it wouldn't be the first time) and even suggest that it is a good thing that I switched majors, since this proposal may seem just too extreme a departure from traditional design constraints …or else the always appreciated quip… "don’t quit your day job"… My response to them … "this energy crisis is starting to get real serious, so let’s hear what you have to offer?" Jones --0-688853291-1086207401=:58763 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Jed Rothwell writes, (in response to a too hastily explained suggestion that): “Thermionic conversion is the answer” [for nuclear heat-to-electricity conversion].

 

JR: “I think it is much too expensive at present. If we had reasonably priced thermionic devices, we would not need any new nuclear, coal or gas-fired power plants for a long time. We could retrofit present reactors to scavenge more of the waste heat, and increase average efficiency from 30% to perhaps 50%.”

 

Yes that kind of add-on thermionic system in not effective. Let me try to make this a little clearer, as the fission thermionic concept is probably not along the lines that you were thinking. This is not the combustion thermionic device, but is inherently designed into the fuel itself...

 

Thermionic ‘topping’ devices have been around for at least forty years but they are not widely used now because the limitations of combustion keeps efficiency low. Therefore, it is easy to see why many will initially balk at a fission application because they are assuming that the supposed ‘low efficiency’ is the general case when in fact it is only a special case (combustion). Once they have been informed of the exploitable differences between the two underlying thermodynamic systems, the response is usually – wow – I should have thought of that. The situation is further complicated by the fact that there are presently nuclear thermionic devices in operation (for space applications) which do not employ the advantage that I will outline below, and are consequently also hindered by efficiency limitations.

 

 Please excuse the following overly simplistic explanation, but a few of the significant differences in fission derived -heat vs. combustion heat are not well recognized (unfortunately not even at DoE ;-)  In the combustion of fossil fuels, only a small percentage of the total Btu’s which are released are available for conversion at the ‘high end’ of the spectrum i.e. over 2000 degrees F. where thermionic converters are efficient. Therefore, one can never get more than a small percentage of thermionic energy from combustion alone, even if the device itself was 100%. In contrast, in fission processes, the underlying reaction is almost ALL at the ‘high end’ (fission fragments releasing ~50 MeV each); therefore when one restrains low end heat rejection, then a significant efficiency gain is possible using thermionics alone – not as a topping cycle but as the sole conversion mechanism.

 

In that regard, the system can be actually both cheaper and much more efficient than steam conversion. As for capital cost, even though you need a lot of zirconium metal for the collectors, etc. (this is really the only refractory metal that has low thermal neutron capture) the overall cost should be less than steam, as cooling towers are enormously expensive.

 

The fuel in this conceptual design is in the form of singlet U-carbide pins, which serve double-duty as thermionic cathode emitters, each surrounded by both a grid and a thin tubular collector, making the arrangement look like a long thin triode, rather than a diode. You could analogize this by remembering what an old radio used to look like when you took off the cover: a forest of tubes. Only here the tubes are thinner and more numerous. Most of the required neutron moderator is external to the tube array- in the form of a thick carbon (graphite) blanket reflector. In this proposal, the cathode is the U fuel itself. Most thermionic devices are diode-type, but with nuclear, there are reasons to suspect that the triode will work much better.

 

The reactor heat will either be carried away by black-body radiation or by “boiling-off” electrons (the Edison effect). Electrons carry off billions of times more heat/particle than radiation, so that even with the parasitic current drain of a high voltage grid, the overall system should be very efficient because there is no convective heat transfer at the low end. No convective heat rejection at the low-end of the energy spectrum is only possible when the fuel/cathode is in a near vacuum and the reaction itself is extremely energetic. Some heat does leave as blackbody radiation – a few tens of percent at most. Remember that the lower efficiency numbers that you have seen in textbooks for thermionic conversion are based on the assumption of combustion as the heat source - where the necessity of wide spectrum heat-rejection always limits efficiency significantly. The situation with fission can be engineered to be substantially different.

 

The fuel itself in this proposal is always in a near-vacuum rather than in a potentially unstable high pressure, bomb-like environment (like the PWR). Since there is near zero heat removal by convection, a relatively small neutron flux (an order of magnitude below that of a PWR) will heat the pins sufficiently to about 2500 F, giving the reactor fuel a very long useful life between refueling, but requiring a higher initial fuel inventory for a given output (so what, if it is natural U). The irony being that the system can be subcritical-by-geometry or by design, rather than subcritical by fuel inventory and still have output in gigawatts. Because the collectors can be kept relatively hot, they can be gas cooled (ultimately air-cooled with a heat exchanger.) at low pressure, unlike the HTGR where hundreds of atms of pressure must be supplied by pumping.

 

Complicated as this explanation seems, the overall system is much more complicated than what is offered here. But this concept has been gradually evolving since a first course in nuclear reactor design nearly forty years ago. If anyone on vortex is paying attention after all this verbiage, they probably have PhD level training in this field, which I do not, and they may choose to scoff at some of this as being too radical (it wouldn't be the first time) and even suggest that it is a good thing that I switched majors, since this proposal may seem just too extreme a departure from traditional design constraints …or else the always appreciated quip… "don’t quit your day job"…

 

My response to them … "this energy crisis is starting to get real serious, so let’s hear what you have to offer?"

 

Jones

 

 

--0-688853291-1086207401=:58763-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 2 14:06:16 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i52L659B030631; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:06:05 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i52L63df030612; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:06:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:06:03 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040602161326.02032b50@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 17:05:35 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: an equal and opposite reactor Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54698 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This discussion is a little unfair to the US corporations who pioneered nuclear power. To some extent, the French were able to improve on the technology because they came second. They were in a position to learn from U.S. mistakes, and to standardize on proven, good designs. Standing Bear writes: > I have been saying for many years that we needed standard designs for > reactors. That would be fine, as long as the standard design is good. There have been standards, and several US nuclear plants were built according to the same design. For example Babcock and Wilcox built Davis-Besse, Three Mile Island (and several other plants) according to a standard, and both plant had exactly same accident caused by a badly designed control system. Davis-Besse was running at low power so it caused no damage, but TMI was close to full power, and a third of the core melted. > A single standard design small reactor, built everywhere, would supply our > needs nicely. Given the widespread incompetence of power company managers and plant operators, and the dangers of dirty bomb terrorism, I think many small reactors would be a nightmare. When I say "incompetence" I mean everything up to and including criminal negligence. Quoting my own I.E. article: Appalling accidents still occurred long after TMI. After the Connecticut Yankee plant was shut down in 1997, an investigation revealed what the state Attorney General described as, "a nuclear management nightmare . . ." He added: "The goal is no longer to decommission a nuclear power plant, but rather to decontaminate a nuclear waste dump." Serious accidents and mistakes had been covered up by management for years, and hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted in a hopeless effort to clean up, before the plant was abandoned. . . . In 1989 metal scraps left inside the reactor vessel by a maintenance crew damaged a rod during refueling. Radioactive material quickly leaked into the surrounding coolant, but the reactor was left to operate for "a world record run of 461 days." The company knew about the fuel rod failure for months, and it knew that contaminated cooling water was escaping from the reactor. "Unmonitored floor and roof drains in radioactive areas of the plant deposited contaminated liquids directly into the soil and the discharge canal . . . Management was aware of these problems but did not take effective steps to resolve them." The investigation also revealed that in the 1980s and '90s the plant operators gave away contaminated soil, asphalt and hundreds of concrete blocks to local residents. In 1989, contaminated soil from the plant was transported to the playground of a day-care center operated by the spouse of a plant employee. This sort of thing is bound to happen, as long as people run our machines. Drunk pilots will always crash airplanes and sink oil tankers. Until computers become so intelligent they are sentient, I do not think we should rely on technology that might cause such disastrous outcomes. > A case in point is Rancho Seco in California not far from > Sacramento. Beautiful place! Horrible design of its turbine! That wasn't the only problem with Rancho Seco. A worker dropped a light bulb into the control panel by accident. This shorted out the control panel. The reactor began to go out of control. Control was reestablished after an hour and nine minutes of frantic activity. Rancho Seco and TMI were examples of what I call the "James Bond standard of industrial engineering." At the end of James Bond movies, Bond finds himself inside an extravagant, hidden, high-tech industrial plant of some sort. It is protected by hundreds of clueless minions, and run by a nefarious villain bent on a wicked plan to take over the world. Bond has no clue how the place works, but he opens some random valve, or presses a button, or he throws a monkey wrench into the works. Or he drops a lightbulb into the control panel. This causes a cascading series of catastrophic failures. None of the minions knows how to reset the machine and stop the destruction. Within minutes the entire plant is wracked by explosions, and it soon sinks under the sea, or causes the mountain fortress to collapse upon it, or it mysteriously falls out of orbit. Apparently these nefarious villains do not follow ASME or OSHA standards. Perhaps they all hire cute-rate industrial engineers from the same inept firm. In any case, these movies seemed unrealistic to me until I read about the accidents at Connecticut Yankee, Ranch Seco, TMI, Browns Ferry, Enrico Fermi, Tokaimura, Monju, etc., not to mention Chernobyl. The fact is, there have been *dozens* of serious accidents at U.S., Japanese and European reactors, and there are bound to be more. There could easily be terrorism with dirty bombs or airplanes crashing into spent fuel storage facilities. Such terrorism is simply out of the question with coal or wind power. Nuclear accidents in first world countries have seldom resulted in a loss of life, but the financial cost of repairing the plants and cleaning up the mess has been staggering. It has been orders of magnitude greater than any other class of industrial accidents. Many thoughtful, well-informed people have decided that on balance, after considering the risks, they prefer nuclear power to coal. I lean that way myself. But some advocates of nuclear power claim there have been no accidents other than TMI, TMI wasn't really so bad, and there is no significant danger. Such people are grossly ignorant. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 2 15:07:42 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i52M7X9B018821; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:07:33 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i52M7TW3018792; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:07:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:07:29 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040602175435.0202ec28@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:07:21 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Toshiba 4S nuclear reactor Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54699 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here is an example of a 10 MW mini-reactor design, with a projected cost of $20 million: http://www.students.tut.fi/~nipo/toshiba.html That would be $2,000 per KW of capacity, which is very reasonable. The projected cost of electricity would be 10 cents/kWh, which is also quite reasonable. Heat is removed from the core by liquid sodium, which mixes by convection, without pumps. That is a dicey choice of fluid. As I said, security and terrorism are major concerns, but on the other hand it is difficult to imagine terrorists would take the trouble to dig up a 70 foot steel tube encased in concrete. Especially when the tube produces 932 degree Fahrenheit steam, and it is filled with liquid sodium that explodes in contact with water. Terrorists can acquire radioactive materials and other nasty stuff elsewhere much more easily. I doubt this project will ever go through. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 2 15:25:42 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i52MPO9B024339; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:25:25 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i52MPKaE024281; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:25:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:25:20 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040602182006.02032b50@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:25:21 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Toshiba 4S nuclear reactor - technical paper Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <0NhoCD.A.P7F.PPlvAB@ultra5.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54700 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See: http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/fnss/fulltext/1172_12.pdf This says 50 kWe -- even better. That would be very cost-effective for the equipment portion. However, I doubt that the generator portion can be operated and maintained over the long term as cheaply as an array of 10 5-MW wind turbines. The temperatures and pressures are more extreme. Wind turbines operate at ambient temperature, unattended for long periods. I think they now have close to the lowest maintenance cost per kWh of any major generating system. The only problem is getting the maintenance worker to the site, which is usually remote. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 2 15:51:02 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i52Mougn017564; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:50:56 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i52Mos0G017534; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:50:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:50:54 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040602182910.0203a1c8@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:50:41 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Toshiba 4S nuclear reactor Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <0PnhIC.A.6RE.OnlvAB@ultra6.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54701 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: When you think about this a little more you begin to see this design would be a major terrorist threat. One 10 MW reactor in the middle of nowhere in Alaska is obviously not going to be targeted by terrorists. That is out of the question. But suppose we implement Standing Bear's plan, and we install "a single standard design small reactor, built everywhere." Let us say it is bigger than the Toshiba 4S, say ~100 MWe. The fuel is even further underground, say 30 meters. It is encased in a heavy steel tube surrounded by two feet of concrete, and it only has to be changed once every 30 years. That sounds pretty secure it doesn't it? The problem is, you would need tens of thousands of these things all over the US, Japan, and Western Europe. I estimate you would need 20,000 in the U.S. alone. Assume installation is staggered over a 30 year period. That means 666 of them have to be refueled every year, or roughly two per day. In other words, on any given day, somewhere in the US, there would two work sites with a heavy crane, a truck and a bunch of workmen removing the tube from the ground, and hauling the spent reactor core to a secure location. No doubt the work schedule would be kept secret and the crews would be carefully protected (and vetted for traitors and lunatics), but anyone who knew the date when the reactor was first installed would know approximately when it would come up for replacement. Al Queda terrorists are patient. They train for their missions for years while they live in the US incognito. One of them could take up residence nearby a reactor that would soon be scheduled maintenance, and simply wait for an opportunity. Obviously, attacking the maintenance crew and stealing the reactor core would be an extremely hazardous undertaking. Even if the guards did not stop you, you would probably kill yourself with radioactivity soon after, when you cracked open the fuel case and assembled the dirty bomb. However, these are suicide bombers. They intend to kill themselves. That is their Standard Operating Procedure. If they survived enough hours to transport the core to the target location and detonate it, they would achieve their objective. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 2 16:03:40 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i52N3L9B004992; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:03:23 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i52N3JML004964; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:03:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:03:19 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040602185209.032df550@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 19:03:17 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Toshiba 4S nuclear reactor - technical paper Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54702 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: "This says 50 kWe -- even better." Meant: 50 MWe. The fuel is 1.3 tons of U + Pu. How jolly! The refuelling interval in this paper is estimated at 10 years, not 30. So every day there would be 6 refueling operations underway somewhere in the U.S. Of course these reactors would be installed in fenced-off, secure locations -- like telephone company central offices -- but you cannot find 20,000 really secure locations in and around population centers. If you put to reactors 100 miles away from population centers that would largely defeat the purpose. This sure would work better with CF. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 2 16:25:45 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i52NPb9B014476; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:25:37 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i52NPZlw014451; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:25:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:25:35 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <40BE61E9.6020903@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 19:25:29 -0400 From: Terry Blanton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l Subject: Standardized Fission Reactor Design Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54703 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There is a problem with having a common design for nuke power plants. If you find a generic problem, you *could* have to shut down all -- a disaster if 60% of your generation capability is based on these plants: http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=58&story_id=773 There is reliability in diversity of an unproven design. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 3 07:22:48 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i53EMhsg001292; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 07:22:44 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i53EMbcf001234; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 07:22:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 07:22:37 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040603102246.02031920@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:23:19 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Fiore cartoon about oil Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54704 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is pretty funny: http://www.sfgate.com/comics/fiore/ - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 3 07:29:21 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i53ETDRv002990; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 07:29:14 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i53ET7KN002950; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 07:29:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 07:29:07 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <20040603142858.99846.qmail@web81107.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 07:28:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Jones Beene Subject: Mark Goldes Interview To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-987218977-1086272938=:99714" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54705 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --0-987218977-1086272938=:99714 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii There is an informative hour-long interview with Mark Glodes at http://www.americanantigravity.com/interviews.shtml The first part touches on a potential ZPE extraction unit that apparently might be realeased rather soon. The bulk of the interview relates to the difficult task of financing innovation from the independent inventor. Jones --0-987218977-1086272938=:99714 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
There is an informative hour-long interview with Mark Glodes at
 
 
The first part touches on a potential ZPE extraction unit that apparently might be realeased rather soon. The bulk of the interview relates to the difficult task of financing innovation from the independent inventor.
 
Jones
--0-987218977-1086272938=:99714-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 3 08:51:55 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i53Fposg028334; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 08:51:50 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i53Fpnjx028311; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 08:51:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 08:51:49 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040603102906.0203adc8@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:52:35 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: You could conserve AND build nuclear plants, but . . . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ultra6.eskimo.com id i53Fpksg028279 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54706 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene writes in a tiny little font: "In the combustion of fossil fuels, only a small percentage of the total Btu’s which are released are available for conversion at the ‘high end’ of the spectrum i.e. over 2000 degrees F. where thermionic converters are efficient. Therefore, one can never get more than a small percentage of thermionic energy from combustion alone, even if the device itself was 100%. In contrast, in fission processes, the underlying reaction is almost ALL at the ‘high end’ (fission fragments releasing ~50 MeV each); therefore when one restrains low end heat rejection, then a significant efficiency gain is possible using thermionics alone – not as a topping cycle but as the sole conversion mechanism." That is certainly a radically new vision of how fission reactors might work. It sounds a little like MHD power generation, with no moving parts. Putting the reactors deep enough underground would eliminate the threat of airplanes crashing into reactors. Some problems remain. If the reactors were small (less than 500 MWe), you would still need thousands of them, and the security issues I described yesterday would crop up. It would be a nightmare to have 5 or 10 refuelling operations per day scattered in urban areas all over the U.S. and Europe, each with 10 or 20 tons of new fuel and spent fuel being moved along highways and through neighborhoods. By the way, I was off by a factor of two yesterday. The U.S. would need roughly 10,000 small reactors, not 20,000. Total U.S. generating capacity is now 981,002 MW. See: http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/industry_overview_and_statistics/industry_statistics/ The statistics on this page illustrate a fundamental problem with electric power generation. Those 981,002 MW were used to generate "3,841,456 gigawatthours." If the generators had been running full blast, 24 hours a day, they would have generated 8,600,000 gigawatthours. Actually, that would not be possible because they would not be enough fuel and plants have to be closed down for maintenance. But the point is, the equipment is either generating well below capacity or idle much of the time. Overall it runs at 56% of nameplate capacity, which is not much different from wind turbines producing ~30% of capacity. (But of course, wind cannot be controlled.) You need the extra equipment to handle peak demand. Here is a thought. In round numbers we need ~1 million MW of peak capacity. Suppose we build 1,000 Beene reactors underground near population centers -- near, but not actually in the cities. Many would be built where coal and gas-fired generators are now located. They would be built as the older generators wear out. Some would be closer to cities, say five or 10 miles from downtown areas. We make these smaller than average present-day nuclear reactors, but much larger than the Toshiba 4S, at ~500 MWe average. That's 500,000 MWe. It is only half of peak capacity, but it is enough to generate all 3 million gigawatthours we need. I suppose that refueling and security issues at 1000 relatively isolated sites would be much easier to deal with than 10,000 urban sites. To handle peak capacity, we also build a large number of 50 to 100 MW fuel cell generators, which can be located right downtown, or inside buildings and shopping malls as space-heating cogenerators. The fuel cell generators produce their own supplies of hydrogen during off-peak hours. They store the hydrogen in local tanks at moderate pressure. The larger ones might even liquify it. In other words, the nuclear plants recharge the fuel cell plants, and the nuclear plants run close to full capacity 24 hours a day. This has the advantages of the fuel cell hydrogen economy, without all those pipelines. It is not practical to send electricity thousands of miles, but sending it 30 or 40 miles is no problem. This system would integrate beautifully with large-scale wind farms, which might replace ~200 of the Beene reactors in states such as Iowa and Texas, which have high population density and lots of wind capacity. Wind electricity is unpredictable, and it is often generated when you do not need it, especially at night. During off-peak hours it could be transmitted 30 or 40 miles to the fuel cell generators, converted into hydrogen, and converted back later as needed. The nuclear plant output would be reduced somewhat when the wind blows strongly at night. This system could be expanded into a series of hydrogen fuel stations for automobiles. Again, it would not call for hydrogen pipelines. On the other hand, it might be cost effective to build a few hydrogen pipelines, from the Dakotas and other wind-rich areas, and these pipelines would fit right into both the electric power and transportation systems. There are overhead and conversion losses, so you actually need more than 500,000 MWe from the Beene reactors. We can estimate this from the Hydrogen Program Plan. It shows advanced electrolysis is 75% efficient, and fuel cells are 50% efficient. (These are 1992 estimates.) So, you would recover only 38% of the electricity stored during off-peak hours. I am not sure how many hours are at peak, or how the numbers work out, but I suppose it comes to 600,000 or 700,000 MWe. Less than a million, anyway. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 3 09:35:45 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i53GZam7014444; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:35:36 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i53GZY7O014425; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:35:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:35:34 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <20040603163527.39545.qmail@web81108.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:35:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Jones Beene Subject: Thiry years ago today To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-295312101-1086280527=:38249" Resent-Message-ID: <2KSQ1C.A.VhD.VN1vAB@ultra5.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54707 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --0-295312101-1086280527=:38249 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On this date in 1974 (in a parallel universe) the first OU semiconductor amplifier was announced (with apologies to HJ Morrison). The details: A plurality of transistor driven amplifier sections are commonly driven by a square wave, low duty factor source and are loosely coupled in parallel to a common load through a plurality of electromagnetic coupled transformers forming the power combiner circuit. The transformers may each employ a variation in individual windings, but the transformer cores are composed of identical low-loss glassy metal amorphous materials. The loose coupling provides a desired low distributive capacitance and high leakage inductive reactance. Each amplifier driver section is coupled to the transformer by a (DC blocking) capacitor having a value so that a series resonant circuit is formed with the combiner circuit leakage reactance near the center of the operating frequency band (target band). A frequency target band is chosen which optimizes the nuclear magnetic resonance characteristics of the transformer cores. Furthermore, the combiner circuit is coupled to the load by means of a harmonic filter having a series inductance input which acts to present a high reactive impedance to harmonics in the square wave voltage applied thereto so that a substantially sine wave of voltage and current is applied to the load. Q: Why didn't this news story happen in our 3-space ? --0-295312101-1086280527=:38249 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

On this date in 1974 (in a parallel universe) the first OU semiconductor amplifier was announced (with apologies to HJ Morrison). The details:

A plurality of transistor driven amplifier sections are commonly driven by a square wave, low duty factor source and are loosely coupled in parallel to a common load through a plurality of electromagnetic coupled transformers forming the power combiner circuit. The transformers may each employ a variation in individual windings, but the transformer cores are composed of identical low-loss glassy metal amorphous materials. The loose coupling provides a desired low distributive capacitance and high leakage inductive reactance. Each amplifier driver section is coupled to the transformer by a (DC blocking) capacitor having a value so that a series resonant circuit is formed with the combiner circuit leakage reactance near the center of the operating frequency band (target band). A frequency target band is chosen which optimizes the nuclear magnetic resonance characteristics of the transformer cores.

Furthermore, the combiner circuit is coupled to the load by means of a harmonic filter having a series inductance input which acts to present a high reactive impedance to harmonics in the square wave voltage applied thereto so that a substantially sine wave of voltage and current is applied to the load.

Q: Why didn't this news story happen in our 3-space ?

--0-295312101-1086280527=:38249-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 3 10:26:50 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i53HQhw7026012; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:26:43 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i53HQdSg025949; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:26:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:26:39 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <20040603172717.42635.qmail@web81104.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:27:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: You could conserve AND build nuclear plants, but . . . To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040603102906.0203adc8@mail.lenr-canr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1172635935-1086283637=:42620" Resent-Message-ID: <6x9MYD.A.XVG.O91vAB@ultra6.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54708 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --0-1172635935-1086283637=:42620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Let me apologize for prior formatting, spelling and assorted errors in previous posts, as I am away from home and sometimes these borrowed or café machines have lots of non-obvious quirks. Jed Rothwell writes (in a continuation of a vision-quest for an acceptable fission reactor that would suffice until LENR is perfected) “Some problems remain. If the reactors were small (less than 500 MWe), you would still need thousands of them... It would be a nightmare to have 5 or 10 refuelling operations per day ...” That would not be a problem for the reactor I described, which uses continuous on-site reprocessing, and never needs external fuel changes. With ‘just-in-time’ breeding and a much larger initial inventory of natural uranium fuel you are set for at least 50 years. You might need 60 tons initially, instead of 20 tons of enriched, but with natural U, the cost would be only a small fraction of 20 tons of enriched fuel. This only works with low neutron flux, and that is only possible when convective heat removal is eliminated. In this design that initial inventory would be all that is required from there on (except for ongoing costs of reprocessing) And as for risk of that much U in one place (even if it is subcritical), consider this: depending on where you excavated, you could actually remove more net tonnage of U from the underground cavern than the amount you used in your plant. Check out the U content of such common soils as “tennessee valley shale” or georgia granite for instance. “Here is a thought. In round numbers we need ~1 million MW of peak capacity. Suppose we build 1,000 Beene reactors underground near population centers -- near, but not actually in the cities. Many would be built where coal and gas-fired generators are now located. They would be built as the older generators wear out... To handle peak capacity, we also build a large number of 50 to 100 MW fuel cell generators... to produce their own supplies of hydrogen during off-peak hours. They store the hydrogen... In other words, the nuclear plants recharge the fuel cell plants, and the nuclear plants run full capacity 24 hours a day.” This total package and combined vision (and the seeming likelihood that it could be pulled-off with no overwhelming technological impediment) is why I cannot understand the ingrained resistance to the general idea of a hydrogen economy. Jones --0-1172635935-1086283637=:42620 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Let me apologize for prior formatting, spelling and assorted errors in previous posts, as I am away from home and sometimes these borrowed or café machines have lots of non-obvious quirks.

 

Jed Rothwell writes (in a continuation of a vision-quest for an acceptable fission reactor that would suffice until LENR is perfected)

 

“Some problems remain. If the reactors were small (less than 500 MWe), you would still need thousands of them... It would be a nightmare to have 5 or 10 refuelling operations per day ...”

 

That would not be a problem for the reactor I described, which uses continuous on-site reprocessing, and never needs external fuel changes. With ‘just-in-time’ breeding and a much larger initial inventory of natural uranium fuel you are set for at least 50 years. You might need 60 tons initially, instead of 20 tons of enriched, but with natural U, the cost would be only a small fraction of 20 tons of enriched fuel. This only works with low neutron flux, and that is only possible when convective heat removal is eliminated. In this design that initial inventory would be all that is required from there on (except for ongoing costs of reprocessing) And as for risk of that much U in one place (even if it is subcritical), consider this: depending on where you excavated, you could actually remove more net tonnage of U from the underground cavern than the amount you used in your plant. Check out the U content of such common soils as “tennessee valley shale” or georgia granite for instance.

 

“Here is a thought. In round numbers we need ~1 million MW of peak capacity. Suppose we build 1,000 Beene reactors underground near population centers -- near, but not actually in the cities. Many would be built where coal and gas-fired generators are now located. They would be built as the older generators wear out... To handle peak capacity, we also build a large number of 50 to 100 MW fuel cell generators... to produce their own supplies of hydrogen during off-peak hours. They store the hydrogen... In other words, the nuclear plants recharge the fuel cell plants, and the nuclear plants run full capacity 24 hours a day.”

 

This total package and combined vision (and the seeming likelihood that it could be pulled-off with no overwhelming technological impediment) is why I cannot understand the ingrained resistance to the general idea of a hydrogen economy.

 

Jones 

--0-1172635935-1086283637=:42620-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 3 14:03:13 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i53L32OG030421; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:03:02 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i53L2c9G030040; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:02:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:02:38 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040603162332.02035078@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:02:25 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: You could conserve AND build nuclear plants, but . . . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54709 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene writes: "That would not be a problem for the reactor I described, which uses continuous on-site reprocessing, and never needs external fuel changes. With 'just-in-time' breeding and a much larger initial inventory of natural uranium fuel you are set for at least 50 years. You might need 60 tons initially, instead of 20 tons of enriched, but with natural U, the cost would be only a small fraction of 20 tons of enriched fuel. . . ." It is beginning to sound almost as good as CF . . . Ouch! (bites own tongue). I wrote: "To handle peak capacity, we also build a large number of 50 to 100 MW fuel cell generators... to produce their own supplies of hydrogen during off-peak hours. They store the hydrogen... In other words, the nuclear plants recharge the fuel cell plants, and the nuclear plants run full capacity 24 hours a day." There would be four reasons for doing this, and all four might not be valid: 1. To reduce the number of nuclear reactor sites, for security reasons. 2. This would be a good idea if the cost of the nuclear generators per kilowatt of capacity is higher than the cost of the fuel cell generators. 3. To integrate the system with wind power. I am assuming wind power will remain cheaper than nuclear power. It would be pointless otherwise. 4. To integrate the system with hydrogen based transportation. If rapid recharge batteries with high power density are developed, they would be superior to hydrogen. A battery-powered car with a ~300 mile range that can be recharged in one minute would be better than any other conventional alternative, measured in efficiency, safety, fuel cost per mile, mechanical simplicity and low maintenance cost. It might even have significant advantages over a CF powered car, depending on whether CF requires precious metals or not. It would be mechanically simpler. (I assume that hydrogen or CF would both require a hybrid electric motor with a conventional battery reservoir. An all-electric car would be simpler because you can leave out the fuel cell or the CF-thermoelectric battery.) Back to Jones: "This total package and combined vision (and the seeming likelihood that it could be pulled-off with no overwhelming technological impediment) is why I cannot understand the ingrained resistance to the general idea of a hydrogen economy." The only limitation to a hydrogen economy that I am aware of may be the lack of platinum group metals, for fuel cells. This might also limit the total amount of energy that we could produce with cold fusion. If CF only works with palladium, Fleischmann estimated it might produce one third of our energy. I made a seat-of-the-pants estimate based on the amount of palladium used in automotive catalytic converters, and I also came up with roughly one third. Let us hope that both fuel cells and cold fusion can be made to work with more common metals such as nickel. If palladium or other precious metals are required for CF, it is likely that CF reactors will end up being used only in medium-scale distributed generators, of 50 to 100 megawatts each, similar to the Toshiba 4S. To use the CF generators 24 hours per day, a system of hydrogen fuel cells might be valuable, unless they competed for the precious metals. Putting the palladium into individual automobiles and home generators would not work because an automobile is only used for an hour per day, so the Pd would be wasted. If the Pd is rapidly transmuted into other elements, and nothing can be done to prevent this, CF will not be a viable source of energy from more than a small fraction of our total requirements. Even Au would be more promising than Pd in this case. I suppose people would raise a ruckus at the thought of gradually burning up the world supply of gold in nuclear reactors. As far as I am concerned, if the choice is to leave the Au sitting uselessly in Fort Knox, or to gradually transmute it in power reactors, the latter would be far better for everyone. Efforts are underway to substitute Pt and possible Ni for Pd in catalytic converters. See: http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/palladium/technology.htm - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 3 14:28:22 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i53LSB1Q002110; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:28:11 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i53LS8WY002087; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:28:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:28:08 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f X-Titankey-e_id: <826ceb97-c6c6-45da-bd2d-a278afac5580> Message-ID: <083a01c449b1$c042f870$7979ccd1@MIKEBY3NR533HT> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040603162332.02035078@mail.lenr-canr.org> Subject: Re: You could conserve AND build nuclear plants, but . . . Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 17:28:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54710 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Reality Check!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" > 4. To integrate the system with hydrogen based transportation. If rapid > recharge batteries with high power density are developed, they would be > superior to hydrogen. A battery-powered car with a ~300 mile range that can > be recharged in one minute NO, NO NO. One minute? To convey the energy equivalent of 20 gallons of gasoline??????? And build a power grid capable of delivering that magnitude of power (energy per unit time) to a service station? This boggles endlessly. would be better than any other conventional > alternative, measured in efficiency, safety, fuel cost per mile, mechanical > simplicity and low maintenance cost. It might even have significant > advantages over a CF powered car, depending on whether CF requires precious > metals or not. It would be mechanically simpler. (I assume that hydrogen or > CF would both require a hybrid electric motor with a conventional battery > reservoir. An all-electric car would be simpler because you can leave out > the fuel cell or the CF-thermoelectric battery.) In a recent ACS presentation, Mills show a conceptual block diagram of a stand-alone, BLP-powered package for delivering hydrogen-on-demand by electrolysis of local water to hydrogen powered automobiles. Just another fuel resource in a transition period. Gasoline from this pump, hydrogen from that one over there. Excess electric power would be supplied to the local grid. Presumably the unit would run continuously, compressing and storing hydrogen locally for rapid transfer to a waiting automobile. Ultimate fuel to run the system, local water. A byproduct of both the power reactor and the electrolytic cell (using potassium carbonate) would be hydrinos, a valuable chemical resource. One of the things Mills believes he can do with hydrinos is to build hyper batteries that will far outperform anything now in any stage of development. These batteries potentially will drive an automobile hundreds of miles with a mass one can carry in one hand. They will not be recharged in "one minute". The source for the hydrinos for these batteries will be, of course, the BLP hydrogen-power modules in your local service station. And on the way to this promised land, BLP has demonstrated reactions that get 100 times as much energy from a quantity of hydrogen than does combustion. So, potentially, a BLP reactor and Stirling engine in a hybrid automobile might be a swap for a gasoline ICE hybrid. This 100 X factor has enormous impact on all the storage problems associated with the hydrogen economy. Stay tuned. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 3 15:41:02 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i53Mev1Q001269; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:40:57 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i53MetBa001247; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:40:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:40:55 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040603174533.02035100@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 18:06:25 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Rapid recharge of electric vehicles Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54711 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike Carrell writes: > > superior to hydrogen. A battery-powered car with a ~300 mile range that > can > > be recharged in one minute > > NO, NO NO. One minute? Make that a few minutes. Say, 5 or 6. I doubt people would want to wait longer than that. > To convey the energy equivalent of 20 gallons of > gasoline??????? Much less than that. 20 gallons gives a 400 mile range in most cars. I said a range of 300 miles, which you get from 15 gallons. Electric cars are more efficient than gasoline ICE cars. In 1992, the average ICE converted 7.8 units of energy to vehicle propulsion (13% overall efficiency), and electric vehicles converted 1.7 units of delivered electricity into vehicle propulsion (60% overall efficiency). The proportions are about the same today, I think. In other words, for a 300 mile range, you need to convey the equivalent of 3.3 gallons. If the batteries were lightweight and compact, you might as well give the car a 500 mile range. Three hundred miles is considered the smallest range American consumers will accept, but if the price of gasoline goes up to $5 per gallon I'll bet American consumers change their minds quickly. I myself could use a 100 mile range electric vehicle for 99% of my needs. It would be awkward driving from Atlanta to Connecticut, though. > And build a power grid capable of delivering that magnitude > of power (energy per unit time) to a service station? This boggles > endlessly. Hmmm . . . The service station would require a large transformer, such as you see in an office park or shopping mall. Suppose it charges 10 cars in 6 minutes. A very large Atlanta service station can do that, although most handle 4 at a time. That is roughly equivalent to delivering 5.5 gallons of gasoline per minute. 1 gallon of gasoline produces 132 MJ of raw heat. So that's 726 MJ = 202 kWh. That's per minute, so we have 12,120 kWh per hour, or 12 MW, for a huge filling station, or 4.8 MW for a typical one. A large office building or hospital consumes about 1 MW; see: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/96/96fc/fc96/96FC5-2.PDF So it would be substantial, but not unthinkable. There are hundreds of office parks and shopping malls in Atlanta, but they do not strain our power supply, and the transformers in their back lots are not all that large or expensive. Perhaps the rapid battery exchange method would be more practical. This would work like the propane gas exchanges at Home Depot. The company (the filling station) would own the battery and maintain it; you would only rent it, and return it to any filling station. The accounting might be complicated but it should be manageable with computers. It would be like keeping track of rental cars or railroad cars. This would also eliminate the need for rapid recharging. That would be a big plus, since rapid recharge batteries have not been invented yet, as far as I know. This would also mean you might as well recharge at home, slowly. But that, in turn, means that few drivers would use the battery exchange stations in urban areas. Why bother, when you can charge overnight? The stations would only be popular on highways . . . so they would not thrive. Perhaps it would be best to try to give electric cars a 600 mile range, so that most trips could be completed without recharging. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 3 15:48:32 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i53MmQAt004423; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:48:26 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i53MmPYr004394; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:48:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:48:25 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040603184442.0204ed60@mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs@lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 18:49:01 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Rapid recharge of electric vehicles Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54712 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: "Perhaps it would be best to try to give electric cars a 600 mile range, so that most trips could be completed without recharging." I meant that you could finish the longest one-day leg of a journey without recharging. Given the speeds on our highways, I do not think many people want to drive more than 600 miles in one day. If a driver does not want to stop overnight after 600 miles, he will at least want to stop for an hour or so, to eat and rest. Recharging the car in one hour is a smaller challenge than recharging it in 6 minutes. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 3 17:51:56 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i540phvS005076; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 17:51:43 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i540pfYu005055; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 17:51:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 17:51:41 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request@eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040603175811.04c30510@mail.dlsi.net> X-Sender: stevek@mail.dlsi.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:58:36 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steve Krivit Subject: NEW ENERGY TIMES Newsletter, June 2, 2004 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_723845171==.ALT" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54713 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --=====================_723845171==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed NEW ENERGY TIMES Newsletter, June 2, 2004 The best source for cold fusion news, information and general education on the field. Table of Contents: Dr. Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusion Pioneer, Killed In Fond Memory of Gene, by Nadine Winocur, Psy.D. How I Came To Know Gene, by Steven B. Krivit U.S. Department of Energy Cold Fusion Review New U.S. Nuclear Fission Plants on the Way ICCF-11 the 11th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Charles Beaudette Speaks on Cold Fusion at MIT Rapporto Sulla Fusione Fredda 2004 Krivit-Winocur Letter to Physics Today Submitted Dr. Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate in Physics Speaks Out Summary of Recent Updates to the New Energy Times Website Please Support our Efforts Administrative Dr. Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusion Pioneer, Killed It is with great sadness that we report the murder of Gene Mallove, who was killed on Friday, May 14, 2004. For links to further details, news reports and tributes to Gene, click here. According to Norwich, Conn. police, as of this morning, the murder remains unsolved. Police suspect two individuals, but the analysis of forensic evidence found on the suspects will not be complete for another two weeks. The police have asked area residents to report any findings of personal items belonging to Gene which have been listed in local newspapers. They hope these items may help link the suspects to the crime. Those wishing to assist the Mallove family may send donations to the Eugene F. Mallove Memorial Family Fund, Sovereign Bank, 73 West Street, Concord NH 03301 USA. All proceeds go directly to benefit the family. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Gene's alma mater, in conjunction with his classmates, family and friends, has developed the Eugene Mallove 1969 Memorial Fund. The hope is to raise at least $25,000 so that the fund can be endowed and become a full scholarship fund. Send tax-deductible donations to the following address: Recording Secretary, MIT Office of the Treasurer, 238 Main St., Suite 200, Cambridge, MA 02142 USA. Be sure to enclose a note which contains the following information: Account #2732139, Eugene Mallove 1969 Memorial Fund. Christy Frazier, Managing Editor of Infinite Energy Magazine has stated, "The Board of Directors of the New Energy Foundation is committed to ensuring the growth and success of the foundation and the magazine, and formal planning is currently underway." Tax-deductible donations can be made to support both the foundation and magazine. In Fond Memory of Gene, by Nadine Winocur, Psy.D. A caring message to the cold fusion community, family and friends of Dr. Gene Mallove: Click here How I Came To Know Gene, by Steven B. Krivit Gene was responsible for rekindling in me an interest in cold fusion that had begun during the initial excitement in 1989 but gone dormant when the media lost interest in the subject. Toward the end of 1999, to my great surprise, I learned through a magazine article about Gene's video, "Cold Fusion: Fire from Water," that cold fusion research was still alive. Despite the fact that I was a computer engineer with no scientific background, my interest in the subject brought me to Bow, New Hampshire for a weekend visit to Gene's New Energy Research Laboratory. Gene was a gracious host who openly taught and shared with me whatever he could during my short visit. While I was uncertain what role I might play at that time, given my enthusiasm toward cold fusion, Gene hoped I might stimulate further interest in and funding for his work. Upon my return to Los Angeles, I was able to make a connection with a venture capitalist who expressed interest, until he learned that no patented device existed. (A common story, as most readers are aware.) I thought about other ways I might be helpful in supporting this revolutionary new science, as I sought to learn everything I could on the subject. I ultimately decided to start a new website to inform the public about it. While I did not always share the same philosophies with Gene, we did share a mutual passion for communicating the veracity and significance of cold fusion. Due to my role as an advocate for cold fusion, many have wondered if I might become more involved with the Infinite Energy magazine. While I plan to continue advocating for the field, my work at New Energy Times, developing ideas to further advance public awareness and working on a forthcoming book, will remain my primary interest. It is an honor to follow the trail which Gene blazed. It will be lonely without him, and I do not relish fighting the battle without Gene, but I am inspired by the enthusiasm of a number of individuals from around the world who have begun writing on the subject of cold fusion. Gene taught me many things about cold fusion, the greatest of which was an understanding of the extraordinarily strong character and integrity of the researchers who have committed their lives to this field. - Steven B. Krivit U.S. Department of Energy Cold Fusion Review No information has been made public yet. Cold fusion scientists who are working with the DOE to plan for the review indicate that steady progress is being made, and that the task group convened by Jim Decker at the DOE continues to demonstrate a genuine interest in evaluating the facts about cold fusion research. New U.S. Nuclear Fission Plants on the Way The U.S. Department of Energy has indicated that there are no immediate, viable alternatives for "a large-scale source of domestically produced electricity that does not produce greenhouse gases." Consequently, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has started construction on a new nuclear power plant, the first in decades. It is expected to come on line in 2007. A feasibility study for a second plant, which will cost $4.25 million over the next 10 months, will help TVA decide whether to build an additional nuclear plant. The DOE will fund half of the cost associated with the study, and a consortium of industries will fund the other half. Click here. ICCF-11 - The 11th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Jean-Paul Biberian, Chairman of ICCF-11, reports that he has already received a significant number of registrations for the 11th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, which will be held from October 31 - November 5, 2004, in Marseilles, France. He notes a tremendous interest from French university students who are curious about the new science. He told us, "This is very promising since new blood and enthusiasm is necessary for the field to be successful." Dr. Biberian also reports interest from diverse fields of science, saying, "People are puzzled by what is happening with cold fusion." Click here to register for the conference and make hotel reservations. Charles Beaudette - Speaks on Cold Fusion at MIT, April 6, 2004 On April 6, 2004, Charles G. Beaudette presented a public lecture entitled "Fifteen Years of Progress in Cold Fusion Research" at the MIT Lincoln Laboratory Auditorium, Lexington, Mass. Beaudette is the author of "Excess Heat & Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed," 2nd Ed., 2002, Oak Grove Press, LLC. The book is in stock and may be purchased from Infinite Energy Magazine by calling (603) 485-4700. In this talk, Mr. Beaudette reviewed highlights of the scientific data that support the claims of a profound new energy source appearing to be a clean form of nuclear energy. He separated the politics from the science, explaining that no public scientific controversy exists over the matter, only a political one. He likened the behavior of the scientists who have criticized cold fusion without debating the actual scientific data to its historic parallel in the refusal of other scientists of his day to look through Galileo's telescope to observe the mountains on the moon. Mr. Beaudette reviewed the key claims of two historic papers which "were published in peer-reviewed journals and stand today in the annals of science as unmitigated, compelling evidence that a new natural phenomenon called 'excess heat' exists. This phenomenon carries with it vast implications." To learn more, or to download the audio presentation, click here. Rapporto Sulla Fusione Fredda 2004 We are very proud to announce that New Energy Times' "The 2004 Cold Fusion Report" has been translated into Italian by Drs. Antonella De Ninno, Antonio Frattolillo and Antonietta Rizzo. We feel honored by their efforts and contribution to the advancement of the cold fusion field. Krivit-Winocur Letter to Physics Today Submitted Our letter (Click here) to the editor was submitted on April 1, 2004 in response to the Physics Today article of the same date, "DOE Warms to Cold Fusion," by Toni Feder. To date, the letter has not been published. Dr. Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Speaks Out Dr. Brian Josephson has taken up a renewed interest in cold fusion. During a recent visit to the U.S., Professor Josephson visited Dr. Mitchell Swartz and Dr. Peter Hagelstein. He subsequently wrote a letter to the editor of The Independent, which will appear in tomorrow's paper. He also wrote a letter in support of our critique of the Physics Today article (Click here) Summary of Recent Updates to the New Energy Times Website Dr. Eugene Mallove page added: Click here Charles G. Beaudette MIT lecture Click here Dennis Cravens Interview Click here Krivit-Winocur Letter to Physics Today Submitted Click here Please Support our Efforts If you find our reporting, work, and newsletter of value we would greatly appreciate a donation of any size. Donations are not tax-deductible at this time. New Energy Times does not accept advertising and conducts business independent from specific researchers. Thank you. Click here Administrative * Please feel free to forward this newsletter. * If you have received this newsletter from a colleague and you wish to receive future communications from New Energy Times directly, click here to subscribe. * If you do not wish to receive future communications from New Energy Times, please click here to unsubscribe. Copyright 2004 New Energy Times Distribution and publication permitted with permission. --=====================_723845171==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" NEW ENERGY TIMES Newsletter, June 2, 2004
The best source for cold fusion news, information and general education on the field.

Table of Contents:
Dr. Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusion Pioneer, Killed
In Fond Memory of Gene, by Nadine Winocur, Psy.D.
How I Came To Know Gene, by Steven B. Krivit
U.S. Department of Energy Cold Fusion Review
New U.S. Nuclear Fission Plants on the Way
ICCF-11 the 11th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
Charles Beaudette Speaks on Cold Fusion at MIT
Rapporto Sulla Fusione Fredda 2004
Krivit-Winocur Letter to Physics Today Submitted
Dr. Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate in Physics Speaks Out
Summary of Recent Updates to the New Energy Times Website
Please Support our Efforts
Administrative


Dr. Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusion Pioneer, Killed
It is with great sadness that we report the murder of Gene Mallove, who was killed on Friday, May 14, 2004. For links to further details, news reports and tributes to Gene, click here. 

According to Norwich, Conn. police, as of this morning, the murder remains unsolved. Police suspect two individuals, but the analysis of forensic evidence found on the suspects will not be complete for another two weeks. The police have asked area residents to report any findings of personal items belonging to Gene which have been listed in local newspapers. They hope these items may help link the suspects to the crime.

Those wishing to assist the Mallove family may send donations to the Eugene F. Mallove Memorial Family Fund, Sovereign Bank, 73 West Street, Concord NH 03301 USA.  All proceeds go directly to benefit the family.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Gene's alma mater, in conjunction with his classmates, family and friends, has developed the Eugene Mallove 1969 Memorial Fund. The hope is to raise at least $25,000 so that the fund can be endowed and become a full scholarship fund. Send tax-deductible donations to the following address:  Recording Secretary, MIT Office of the Treasurer, 238 Main St., Suite 200, Cambridge, MA 02142 USA.  Be sure to enclose a note which contains the following information: Account #2732139, Eugene Mallove 1969 Memorial Fund.

Christy Frazier, Managing Editor of Infinite Energy Magazine has stated, "The Board of Directors of the New Energy Foundation is committed to ensuring the growth and success of the foundation and the magazine, and formal planning is currently underway."  Tax-deductible donations can be made to support both the foundation and magazine.


In Fond Memory of Gene, by Nadine Winocur, Psy.D.
A caring message to the cold fusion community, family and friends of Dr. Gene Mallove: Click here


How I Came To Know Gene, by Steven B. Krivit
Gene was responsible for rekindling in me an interest in cold fusion that had begun during the initial excitement in 1989 but gone dormant when the media lost interest in the subject.  Toward the end of 1999, to my great surprise, I learned through a magazine article about Gene's video, "Cold Fusion: Fire from Water," that cold fusion research was still alive. Despite the fact that I was a computer engineer with no scientific background, my interest in the subject brought me to Bow, New Hampshire for a weekend visit to Gene's New Energy Research Laboratory. 

Gene was a gracious host who openly taught and shared with me whatever he could during my short visit.  While I was uncertain what role I might play at that time, given my enthusiasm toward cold fusion, Gene hoped I might stimulate further interest in and funding for his work.  Upon my return to Los Angeles, I was able to make a connection with a venture capitalist who expressed interest, until he learned that no patented device existed.  (A common story, as most readers are aware.) 

I thought about other ways I might be helpful in supporting this revolutionary new science, as I sought to learn everything I could on the subject. I ultimately decided to start a new website to inform the public about it.  While I did not always share the same philosophies with Gene, we did share a mutual passion for communicating the veracity and significance of cold fusion.

Due to my role as an advocate for cold fusion, many have wondered if I might become more involved with the Infinite Energy magazine. While I plan to continue advocating for the field, my work at New Energy Times, developing ideas to further advance public awareness and working on a forthcoming book, will remain my primary interest.  It is an honor to follow the trail which Gene blazed.  It will be lonely without him, and I do not relish fighting the battle without Gene, but I am inspired by the enthusiasm of a number of individuals from around the world who have begun writing on the subject of cold fusion.

Gene taught me many things about cold fusion, the greatest of which was an understanding of the extraordinarily strong character and integrity of the researchers who have committed their lives to this field.

- Steven B. Krivit
 

U.S. Department of Energy Cold Fusion Review
No information has been made public yet. Cold fusion scientists who are working with the DOE to plan for the review indicate that steady progress is being made, and that the task group convened by Jim Decker at the DOE continues to demonstrate a genuine interest in evaluating the facts about cold fusion research.
 

New U.S. Nuclear Fission Plants on the Way
The U.S. Department of Energy has indicated that there are no immediate, viable alternatives for "a large-scale source of domestically produced electricity that does not produce greenhouse gases."  Consequently, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has started construction on a new nuclear power plant, the first in decades. It is expected to come on line in 2007.  A feasibility study for a second plant, which will cost $4.25 million over the next 10 months, will help TVA decide whether to build an additional nuclear plant. The DOE will fund half of the cost associated with the study, and a consortium of industries will fund the other half.  Click here.


ICCF-11 - The 11th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
Jean-Paul Biberian, Chairman of ICCF-11, reports that he has already received a significant number of registrations for the 11th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, which will be held from October 31 - November 5, 2004, in Marseilles, France. He notes a tremendous interest from French university students who are curious about the new science. He told us, "This is very promising since new blood and enthusiasm is necessary for the field to be successful."  Dr. Biberian also reports interest from diverse fields of science, saying, "People are puzzled by what is happening with cold fusion."  Click here  to register for the conference and make hotel reservations.


Charles Beaudette - Speaks on Cold Fusion at MIT, April 6, 2004
On April 6, 2004, Charles G. Beaudette presented a public lecture entitled "Fifteen Years of Progress in Cold Fusion Research" at the MIT Lincoln Laboratory Auditorium, Lexington, Mass. Beaudette is the author of "Excess Heat & Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed," 2nd Ed., 2002, Oak Grove Press, LLC. The book is in stock and may be purchased from Infinite Energy Magazine  by calling (603) 485-4700. 

In this talk, Mr. Beaudette reviewed highlights of the scientific data that support the claims of a profound new energy source appearing to be a clean form of nuclear energy.  He separated the politics from the science, explaining that no public scientific controversy exists over the matter, only a political one. He likened the behavior of the scientists who have criticized cold fusion without debating the actual scientific data to its historic parallel in the refusal of other scientists of his day to look through Galileo's telescope to observe the mountains on the moon.

Mr. Beaudette reviewed the key claims of two historic papers which "were published in peer-reviewed journals and stand today in the annals of science as unmitigated, compelling evidence that a new natural phenomenon called 'excess heat' exists. This phenomenon carries with it vast implications."  To learn more, or to download the audio presentation, click here.


Rapporto Sulla Fusione Fredda 2004
We are very proud to announce that New Energy Times' "The 2004 Cold Fusion Report" has been translated into Italian by Drs. Antonella De Ninno, Antonio Frattolillo and Antonietta Rizzo.  We feel honored by their efforts and contribution to the advancement of the cold fusion field.


Krivit-Winocur Letter to Physics Today Submitted
Our letter (Click here) to the editor was submitted on April 1, 2004 in response to the Physics Today article of the same date, "DOE Warms to Cold Fusion," by Toni Feder. To date, the letter has not been published.


Dr. Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Speaks Out
Dr. Brian Josephson has taken up a renewed interest in cold fusion.  During a recent visit to the U.S., Professor Josephson visited Dr. Mitchell Swartz and Dr. Peter Hagelstein. He subsequently wrote a letter to the editor of The Independent, which will appear in tomorrow's paper. He also wrote a letter in support of our critique of the Physics Today article (Click here)


Summary of Recent Updates to the New Energy Times Website
Dr. Eugene Mallove page added: Click here
Charles G. Beaudette MIT lecture Click here
Dennis Cravens Interview Click here
Krivit-Winocur Letter to Physics Today Submitted  Click here


Please Support our Efforts
If you find our reporting, work, and newsletter of value we would greatly appreciate a donation of any size. Donations are not tax-deductible at this time.  New Energy Times does not accept advertising and conducts business independent from specific researchers.  Thank you. Click here


Administrative
* Please feel free to forward this newsletter.
* If you have received this newsletter from a colleague and you wish to receive future communications from New Energy Times directly, click here to subscribe.
* If you do not wish to receive future communications from New Energy Times, please click here to unsubscribe. 

 
Copyright 2004 New Energy Times
Distribution and publication permitted with permission.



--=====================_723845171==.ALT--