LENR
JohnEB
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/05/06/nasa-working-on-lenr-replication-and-theory-confirmation/
NASA Advances Evaluation of Piantelli’s LENR Research
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/09/28/nasa-advances-evaluation-of-piantelli%E2%80%99s-lenr-research/
Piantelli Group Papers, Patent Applications and Related Ni-H References
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Piantelli/PiantelliGroupPapers.shtml
JohnEB
Cold Fusion Rebirth? New Evidence for LENR
Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called "cold fusion" that may promise a new source of energy. One group of scientists, for instance, describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring.
JohnEB
JohnEB
Abstract.
Under special circumstances, electromagnetic and weak interactions can induce low-energy nuclear reactions to occur with observable rates for a variety of processes.A common element in all these applications is that the electromagnetic energy stored in many relatively slow-moving electrons can { under appropriate circumstances { be collectively transferred into fewer, much faster electrons with energies su±cient for the latter to combine with protons (or deuterons, if present) to produce neutrons via weak interactions. The produced neutrons can then initiate low-energy nuclear reactions through further nuclear transmutations. The aim of this paper is to extend and enlarge upon various examples analysed previously, present order of magnitude estimates for each and to illuminate a common unifying theme amongst all of them.http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/v75/p617/fulltext.pdf
mockan1
I suppose IF this can be made to work, then uranium 238 could be
transmuted
to plutonium 239 in desk top apparatus, and any body could then build
atomic
bombs. ANY process that can make neutrons, of any energy, if efficient
enough,
would mean the end of life as we know it.
One should probably hope that the authors of the article are mistaken.
On Nov 27, 4:04 am, JohnEB <johnbarc...@frontier.com> wrote:
> *A primer for electroweak induced low-energy nuclear reactions*
> Y N SRIVASTAVA, A WIDOM and L LARSEN
>
> *Abstract*. Under special circumstances, electromagnetic and weak
JohnEB
Piantelli are true, but that the effects can be explained by the Standard Model "electroweak" concepts, and therefore no new physics is needed.
mockan1
If the paper hypothesis that ultra low momentum neutrons can be
made in the process the authors describe is correct, then those
neutrons should be able to transmute
uranium. Except for the source of neutrons, the transmutation of
uranium would result in plutonium,
just as it does in a conventional fission reactor where plutonium is
manufactured for nuclear weapons.
What I am saying is that if
the authors hypothesis is correct, then we have a problem. The process
would undermine
all efforts at nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.
I did not mention LENR in my previous comment. To be clear, I assume
also that LENR effects
can be explained without new physics.
To summarize again, in a more specific context, one should probably
hope that the authors of the
article are mistaken that neutrons can be made in the method they
describe.
JohnEB
mockan1
using it for commercial transmutation of uranium
to obtain amounts of plutonium sufficient to reach critical mass for a
nuclear device. Not to say it couldn't
be done. If, for example, 100,000 high school students each had one
plugged into a wall outlet in their
garage at home, and each fusor was generating 1*10^8 neutrons per
second, and each fusor was surrounded
with a shell of uranium, then in theory if the neutrons were slowed to
provide maximum cross-section
absorption by the uranium nuclei, each fusor could transmute 10^8
atoms uranium per second.
In a year that would be 1*10^8*100,000*365*24*60*60=3.285*10^20 atoms
per years. Given Avogadro number
6.02*10^23 atom per mole of uranium (at 238 grams/mole), the mass of
uranium atoms transmuted, Ut,
per year, would be Ut=((3.285*10^20)/(6.02*10^23))*(238)= (app) .130
gram/year. Not very much, and to
isolate the transmuted element would require a massive effort.
On the other hand, if the WL hypothesis does explain some LENR
effects, then the neutrons being
made in some existing "table top" apparatus, are responsible for the
gram level quantities of elements
that have been measured as transmuted, from the original elements in
the apparatus.
There was an apparatus called the LENT-1, some years ago, that
transmuted thorium into copper
and titanium. The question then was thorium being transmuted by
successive transmutation and
fission of unstable elements by neutrons, somehow being created in the
apparatus, or was other
physics involved? I have not heard anything about the LENT-1 for many
years. I have often wondered
what would happen if you put uranium into the apparatus, and isolated
it quickly after transmutation.
Might you have some plutonium, under certain conditions? I also
wondered if maybe that might be
the reason the test units that were planned to be sold to universities
for experimentation were pulled
shortly after the first few were made and sold. The test units cost
about $3800. I know because I
tried to order one. But the inventor died about then, and I never was
able to buy a unit for testing.
The LENT-1 after that seemed to have fallen off the edge of the world.
I have not heard anything
more about it for many years.
On Nov 28, 4:14 am, JohnEB <johnbarc...@frontier.com> wrote:
> mockan1:
> "In later life, Farnsworth invented a small *nuclear fusion*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion>device, the
> *Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor>, or simply
> "fusor", employing *inertial electrostatic confinement*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostatic_confinement>(IEC). Although not a practical device for generating
> *nuclear energy* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power>, the fusor
> serves as a viable source of *neutrons*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron>
> .*[5]* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth#cite_note-fusor3-4>The design of this device has been the acknowledged inspiration for other
> fusion approaches including the *Polywell*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell>reactor concept in terms of a general approach to fusion design.
> *[6]* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth#cite_note-fusor4-5>"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth
mockan1
space Google groups many years
ago. We were talking about nuclear propulsion for rockets, and
variations of the "salt water nuclear engine",
that used uranium 235 or uranium 233 dissolved as a salt compound in
water, to power the engine.
The water was just a carrier to get the fuel into the engine, where it
would go critical and explode.
It was sort of a continuous detonating atomic bomb behind the vehicle
that would enable trips to Mars
in a few days. Not powerful enough for star ship propulsion, but
adequate for solar system travel.
The question arose then could a fusor be used to make nuclear fuel to
power such a rocket,
because it was clear governments would never allow nuclear fuel for
commercial space ventures.
The conclusion we all determined was that making fuel with fusor
neutrons, by transmuting thorium
into uranium 233, was impractical. I forget the exact Google space
group and when, but if you are interested
might still be in the archives somewhere.
On Nov 28, 4:14 am, JohnEB <johnbarc...@frontier.com> wrote:
> mockan1:
> "In later life, Farnsworth invented a small *nuclear fusion*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion>device, the
> *Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor>, or simply
> "fusor", employing *inertial electrostatic confinement*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostatic_confinement>(IEC). Although not a practical device for generating
> *nuclear energy* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power>, the fusor
> serves as a viable source of *neutrons*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron>
> .*[5]* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth#cite_note-fusor3-4>The design of this device has been the acknowledged inspiration for other
> fusion approaches including the *Polywell*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell>reactor concept in terms of a general approach to fusion design.
> *[6]* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth#cite_note-fusor4-5>"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth
JohnEB
mockan1 said:
I suppose IF this can be made to work, then uranium 238 could be transmuted to plutonium 239 in desk top apparatus, and any body could then build
atomic bombs.
mockan1
based on the WL hypothesis. If that is the case, then the technology
will be restricted, and any person wanting to build using the
Piantelli
process ( or the Rossi E-Cat), will be prohibited from doing so.
It could be regulated like trying to grow hemp. One might try, but the
"LENR police" would be after you.
Preventing nuclear material proliferation will always be a major
security
concern for countries, Look at the situation with Iran. There is talk
of
attacking an entire country because they "might", someday, be able to
build a nuclear weapon. Carry that kind of paranoia over to
suspecting
that any person in the world "might", someday, be able to do the same.
In any event the shit is going to hit the fan soon about this subject.
What do you think?
JohnEB
JohnEB
JohnEB
NASA & Energy
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
NASA’s Bushnell: LENR Most Promising Energy Alternative, and It’s Not Fusion
http://blog.newenergytimes.com.....-and-its-not-fusion/
LENR News
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
LANR AT MIT
http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/successful-cold-fusionlanr-demonstration-at-mit-again/
LANR AT MIT
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/LANR2011Colloq.pdf
JohnEB
JohnEB
Billionaire helps fund MU energy research
JohnEB
An overview will be given on the main progress made –since March 1989- through experimental/theoretical studies on thermal/nuclear anomalies observed in forced interactions of Hydrogen isotopes (H, D), in non-equilibrium conditions, with pure or alloyed materials (mainly Palladium, Nickel).
Most of the experiments used electrolytic environments at moderate temperatures (20-50°C). More recently, gas environments have been used at higher temperatures (between 200-400°C and even temperatures between 500-900°C have been employed).
Specific nanostructures have begun to play a crucial role both in basic studies as well as in, recently claimed, technological/industrial applications.
A plethora of theoretical models have been proposed to explain several experimental anomalies in LENR. A brief description of a weak interaction model shall be presented that claims to explain almost ALL of the anomalous effects found so far.
https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=177379