Thorium - L.F.T.R. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sG9_OplUK8 )
Gravock
Seems an even bigger "Cat" may be scratching at the Bag
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbE6V6HKHC3NOOSJmI9QEgP3H5EXcuGDPNn5Oc787RQ/edit (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbE6V6HKHC3NOOSJmI9QEgP3H5EXcuGDPNn5Oc787RQ/edit)
Chet K
Quote from: ramset on March 24, 2015, 04:36:22 AM
Seems an even bigger "Cat" may be scratching at the Bag
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbE6V6HKHC3NOOSJmI9QEgP3H5EXcuGDPNn5Oc787RQ/edit (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbE6V6HKHC3NOOSJmI9QEgP3H5EXcuGDPNn5Oc787RQ/edit)
Chet K
What you've got are experiments that from Parkhomov that are at best inspired by Rossi's claims and where Parkhomov reports excess heat. Parkhomov reports that he needs to take his DUTs to 1100C before his fuel effectively ignites. This is very different than the Rossi's eCat claims and even substantially different than his Hot Cat claims. Rossi should be left to his second career as a carnival barker.
Parkhomov's 1.73:1 results are interesting enough that they should be replicated using better controls, integration of all input energy, and no phase conversion in the cooling water. The more recent 1.12:1 results are far less encouraging and suggest measurement error. It should cost less than $10,000 in materials and instrument rentals to set-up and conduct such an experiment.
Quote from: ramset on March 24, 2015, 04:36:22 AM
Seems an even bigger "Cat" may be scratching at the Bag
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbE6V6HKHC3NOOSJmI9QEgP3H5EXcuGDPNn5Oc787RQ/edit (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbE6V6HKHC3NOOSJmI9QEgP3H5EXcuGDPNn5Oc787RQ/edit)
Chet K
The LFTR has nearly a 100 percent mass to energy coversion in the form of electrical output and it's considered a "puesdo cat" where it produces almost as much catalyst as it consumes. I believe China has stepped up to the plate and is currently in the process of building more than 20+ LFTR's.
The LENR consumes it's catalysts and the conversion from heat to electrical output is inefficient.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on March 24, 2015, 05:52:13 AM
The LFTR has nearly a 100 percent mass to energy coversion in the form of electrical output and it's considered a "puesdo cat" where it produces almost as much catalyst as it consumes. I believe China has stepped up to the plate and is currently in the process of building more than 20+ LFTR's.
The LENR consumes it's catalysts and the conversion from heat to electrical output is inefficient.
Gravock
The LFTR does not convert 100 percent mass to energy. It utilizes nearly 100% of the fission energy, whereas a conventional light water reactor utilizes less tan 1%. LFTRs are still steam boilers, but can produce high temperature steam. China and India are both working fairly aggressively on LFTRs.
LFTRs promise to be far more resistant to weapons profileration, are massively safer than PLWRs of today, and generate waste that has orders of magnitude shorter half life than PWLRs. But they still generate radioactive waste, whereas if LENR is real, it supposedly does not.
Quote from: MarkE on March 24, 2015, 07:54:51 AM
The LFTR does not convert 100 percent mass to energy. It utilizes nearly 100% of the fission energy, whereas a conventional light water reactor utilizes less tan 1%. LFTRs are still steam boilers, but can produce high temperature steam. China and India are both working fairly aggressively on LFTRs.
LFTRs promise to be far more resistant to weapons profileration, are massively safer than PLWRs of today, and generate waste that has orders of magnitude shorter half life than PWLRs. But they still generate radioactive waste, whereas if LENR is real, it supposedly does not.
It's not a steam boiler. The LFTR can utilize a gas turbine, which has efficiencies above 60 percent. This is much better than the 0.5 percent for light water and 0.7 percent for heavy water reactors. When I wrote my previous post, I was thinking how gas furnaces approach 96 percent efficiencies, and applied that to the LFTR without giving much thought to it.
Also, a rare isotope of bismuth from this technology can be used for cancer treatments having a high sucess rate.
What bothers me is how such a technology can be ignored and suppressed for as long as this has been.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on March 24, 2015, 02:47:48 PM
It's not a steam boiler. The LFTR can utilize a gas turbine, which has efficiencies above 60 percent. This is much better than the 0.5 percent for light water and 0.7 percent for heavy water reactors. When I wrote my previous post, I was thinking how gas furnaces approach 96 percent efficiencies, and applied that to the LFTR without giving much thought to it.
Gravock
The output of a gas furnace is heat. The output that we are interested in here is electricity. A LFTR does much better than a PLWR converting available energy to heat, and much higher temperature, and therefore quality of heat than a PLWR. Gas turbines are not really relevant here because there isn't a combustion chamber. Exchange fluid heated by the LFTR runs what would be the second stage of a multistage gas turbine set-up.
Quote from: MarkE on March 24, 2015, 03:04:25 PM
The output of a gas furnace is heat. The output that we are interested in here is electricity. A LFTR does much better than a PLWR converting available energy to heat, and much higher temperature, and therefore quality of heat than a PLWR. Gas turbines are not really relevant here because there isn't a combustion chamber. Exchange fluid heated by the LFTR runs what would be the second stage of a multistage gas turbine set-up.
I know a gas furnace produces heat. That is why I said I didn't put much thought into applying the efficiency of a gas furnce to a gas turbine. You apparently didn't watch the documentary where it says a gas turbine can be used by burning gas for the LIFTR's.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on March 24, 2015, 03:13:53 PM
I know a gas furnace produces heat. That is why I said I didn't put much thought into applying the efficiency of a gas furnce to a gas turbine. You apparently didn't watch the documentary where it says a gas turbine can be used for the LIFTR's.
Gravock
A gas turbine burns fuel in a combustion chamber and the expanding gasses exhaust through the output turbines. The exhaust gasses are then used to drive a lower pressure turbine set. A LFTR only has the "exhaust gasses", IE the working fluid heated by heat exchange with the LFTR core. A LFTR like a PLWR heats working fluid that then drives turbines. The turbo machinery in a nuke is the back end of the turbo machinery in a natural gas electric plant.
I am in the process of reading: 'super fuel' by Richard Martin ISBN 978-1-137-27834-0
The LFTR's waste heat can be used to desalinate sea water. Extracting natural gas from the ground releases radon, which is radioactive. The process of using coal also releases radiation. The current energy technologies based around coal and natural gas are releasing thousands of times more radiation into the environment than current nuclear reactors. The radioactive waste materials from conventional nuclear reactors being stored can be used as fuel for the LFTR's and completely burned. I believe the LFTR's would be nearly as safe as LENR's that produce no detectable radiation.
Gravock
gravityblock, totally agree.
Quote from: MarkE on March 24, 2015, 07:54:51 AM
LFTRs are still steam boilers, but can produce high temperature steam.
Here's a diagram for the LFTR's showing how the cold in and hot out can also drive turbines in addition to the gas turbines. You saying LFTR's are still steam boilers, is only based around the poor design of conventional nuclear reactors.
Gravock
LFTR's - What Fusion Wanted To Be ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8) )
Gravock
Quote from: MarkE on March 24, 2015, 03:04:25 PM
Gas turbines are not really relevant here because there isn't a combustion chamber. Exchange fluid heated by the LFTR runs what would be the second stage of a multistage gas turbine set-up.
Here'a another diagram showing a closed cycle gas turbine for the LFTR's, and you say it's not really relevant here, lol.
Gravock
14 year old builds a working nuclear fusion reactor and more. This is more evidence of suppression and greed in order to further enslave us. It's as if they're using these breakthrough technologies for military purposes only, while keeping it away from the public and commercial sectors.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvXFrbvnpZE )
Gravock
UFO taking plasma from the sun.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceph2kpYEN4 )
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on March 24, 2015, 06:25:30 PM
Here's a diagram for the LFTR's showing how the cold in and hot out can also drive turbines in addition to the gas turbines. You saying LFTR's are still steam boilers, is only based around the poor design of conventional nuclear reactors.
Gravock
I think you may have a problem with what a "gas turbine" is. A "gas turbine" is a combustion driven turbine. LFTRs do not combust gas. They generate lots of heat that can be used to drive turbines that can turn electrical generators.
I like the idea of LFTRs. They promise to solve a lot of problems.
Quote from: MarkE on March 24, 2015, 11:15:14 PM
I think you may have a problem with what a "gas turbine" is. A "gas turbine" is a combustion driven turbine. LFTRs do not combust gas.
You should take this up with the nuclear physicists and other scientists who are proposing a gas turbine for the LFTR's. Maybe you should watch the videos, you just may learn something new.
Gravock
As worldwide economic conditions fluctuate, the total worldwide annual end cost to consumers varies. A good round number is $10 trillion USD. That's the global gross retail revenue available to a tycoon who has completely cornered the energy market. If an inventor dreams of his gross income for the life of his patent, 20 years X $10 trillion = $200 trillion.
How did you get the number $50 quadrillion?
Kindest
CANGAS 156
Quote from: CANGAS on March 25, 2015, 12:21:59 AM
As worldwide economic conditions fluctuate, the total worldwide annual end cost to consumers varies. A good round number is $10 trillion USD. That's the global gross retail revenue available to a tycoon who has completely cornered the energy market. If an inventor dreams of his gross income for the life of his patent, 20 years X $10 trillion = $200 trillion.
How did you get the number $50 quadrillion?
Kindest
CANGAS 156
This isn't limited to just the energy market. Cancer and other medical treatments, desalination of see water to be used by coastal countries for growing crops who has a water shortage, coal into a liquid fuel, ect. I'm only touching the surface. LFTR's will revelotionize every industry in this world, along with creating new industries.
The number 50 quadrillion, which I believe came from a professor in the 1940's if my memory serves me correctly, can be found in the video of the original post of this thread. The professor was more than likely not basing the number on the life of a patent, but basing it on the life of the technology itself. The number is probably on the low side.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on March 25, 2015, 12:42:44 AM
This isn't limited to just the energy market. Cancer and other medical treatments, desalination of see water to be used by coastal countries for growing crops who has a water shortage, coal into a liquid fuel, ect. I'm only touching the surface. LFTR's will revelotionize every industry in this world, along with creating new industries.
The number 50 quadrillion, which I believe came from a professor in the 1940's if my memory serves me correctly, can be found in the video of the original post of this thread. The professor was more than likely not basing the number on the life of a patent, but basing it on the life of the technology itself. The number is probably on the low side.
Gravock
Thank you for the informative reply.
Surely you are joking, Mr. Gravock! Using
free energy to turn coal into combustible fuel??
A money number true in the 40s could easily be 10X or 20X higher now. But let's forget about putting fresh carbon into the atmosphere if we have
free energy up our sleeve.
Best regards
CANGAS 157
Quote from: CANGAS on March 25, 2015, 01:28:23 AM
Thank you for the informative reply.
Surely you are joking, Mr. Gravock! Using free energy to turn coal into combustible fuel??
A money number true in the 40s could easily be 10X or 20X higher now. But let's forget about putting fresh carbon into the atmosphere if we have free energy up our sleeve.
Best regards
CANGAS 157
How is a nuclear reactor going to fit into the cars, lawnmowers, airplanes, chainsaws, etc. for clean energy?
Coal to liquid fuel (CTL) is cleaner, cheaper, and without the CTL carbon footprint. ( http://www.technologyreview.com/news/426551/cleaner-cheaper-liquid-fuel-from-coal/ (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/426551/cleaner-cheaper-liquid-fuel-from-coal/) )
Synthetic trees capture carbon 1,000 times faster ( http://m.phys.org/news166374180.html (http://m.phys.org/news166374180.html) )
Gravock