Overunity.com Archives

Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: hartiberlin on April 06, 2005, 06:35:36 PM

Title: Dakota Nuclear
Post by: hartiberlin on April 06, 2005, 06:35:36 PM
Read this,
it is very interesting !
It also tells you, what the FED is doing to you !

http://www.worldslaves.citymax.com/page/page/1769161.htm
Title: Re: Dakota Nuclear
Post by: kenbo0422 on April 14, 2005, 08:12:01 AM
I've worked on nuclear subs.  The questions posed on this site http://www.worldslaves.citymax.com/page/page/1769161.htm about the subs shows his ignorance about them.  See my post about homemade nuclear reactors.  One of the criteria of learning to run a nuke power plant such as these was to know how they had to be built to work and the difference between a reactor setup and a bomb.  The reason I point this out about the above page is that it takes his credibility down a notch or two and makes you wonder about the other things he talks about.  Fluoride isn't good....  and swallowing the story of pretty teeth is absurd.  Chlorine is cheaper and eventually evaporates from the system with a good enough bacteria kill to give a standard coliform test a clean zero.  It even works in municipal wastewater systems which is thousands of times more polluted than the reservoirs.  Go figure....

Kenbo
Title: Re: Dakota Nuclear
Post by: Bruce A. Perreault on April 14, 2005, 01:01:47 PM
Kenbo,

Not many people know this but a reactor can be designed to produce high voltage direct electricity instead of heat. This eliminates the ineffficiency of the steam/turbine process that wastes energy.

                   -Bruce P.
Title: Re: Dakota Nuclear
Post by: Kysmett on April 14, 2005, 04:29:34 PM
Bruce,

Would this be that thing that you are keeping to yourself for now or do you have any links to references?
Title: Re: Dakota Nuclear
Post by: Bruce A. Perreault on April 14, 2005, 05:52:47 PM
Kysmett,

No, it is not the thing that I have been keeping to myself. It is an old Dec. 27, 1955 patent.
It is titled "Generation of Power" U.S. Patent No. 2,728,867 - http://www.tinyurl.com/4zkvm
I used this example in one of my lectures.

                  -Bruce P.
Title: Re: Dakota Nuclear
Post by: kenbo0422 on April 14, 2005, 10:00:53 PM
Not many people know this but a reactor can be designed to produce high voltage direct electricity instead of heat. This eliminates the ineffficiency of the steam/turbine process that wastes energy.

Bruce,

I've heard of this....? Is it thermocoupling or free electrons from the process of fission?   ???

Ken
Title: Re: Dakota Nuclear
Post by: Kysmett on April 15, 2005, 12:40:07 AM
Just read that patent Bruce.  Thanks for the link.  I wonder, though, how much heat in the nuclear reactor is actually caused by beta particle emmissions as a percentage.  It talks about beta collection and alpha degradation throught the insulating layers, but nothing about heat in any other way.  Is he saying that a reactor properly configured in this manner would run cool?  If not do we have the materials that could stand up to that kind of heat without the need for cooling?

Thoughts only... do you have any further insight in this or is this irrelevent when compared to the production of voltage between the conductors and the rods?
Title: Re: Dakota Nuclear
Post by: Bruce A. Perreault on April 15, 2005, 09:15:14 AM
Kysmett,

Column two of the patents indicates... "beta rays may be conducted externally of the neutronic reactor tthrough terminals as electrical energy rather being dissipated in the form of heat energy in the reactor." However, you are correct, the patent doesn't further elaborate on the heat generated from the alphas, etc... Do the thermal neutrons generate heat or not? I would think that a small fission battery could be designed using a cold neutron source that would not generated too much heat.

                      -Bruce P.
Title: Re: Dakota Nuclear
Post by: Kysmett on April 15, 2005, 10:42:29 AM
My only problem with this is the relativistic way in which we view heat in reactors, when compared with our normal lives.  Is not too much heat still more than, say, what occurs in a combusion engine?  I don't mean to be a pain, just looking at the possibilities.
Title: Re: Dakota Nuclear
Post by: roggy32 on November 28, 2006, 03:50:28 PM
All of the satellite power sources used or currently use that method to generate power from nuclear reactions, because of anti-nuclear activist worries about a possible explosion releasing radioactive debris from a failed space mission. NASA has looked at storing power in high speed super efficient flywheels and permanent magnet dc generators to siphon off power from the flywheel.