Discussion of the hydrino theory of Dr. Randell Mills

Shane | 1 Mar 2007 13:33

Re: Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?

I don't begrudge money being spent on IRER but other fusion ideas
deserve more funding. 

--- In hydrino@..., "Clark  Whelton" <cwhelton <at> ...> wrote:
>
> The New York Times
> Science Section
> 
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/science/27fusion.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
> 
> 
> February 27, 2007
> 
> Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?
> 
> 
> By KENNETH CHANG
> 
> 
> LOS ANGELES - Brian Kappus, a physics graduate student at U.C.L.A.,
tipped 
> the clear cylinder to trap some air bubbles in the clear liquid
inside. He 
> clamped the cylinder, upright, on a small turntable and set it
spinning. 
> With the flip of another switch, powerful up-and-down vibrations, 50 a 
> second, started shaking the cylinder.
> 
>

(Continue reading)

headers

sig5534 | 4 Mar 2007 22:06

Re: Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?

>> "You solve the world's pollution problems,"
>> The appeals of fusion are many: no planet- warming gases, no
>> radioactive-waste headache, plentiful fuel...

Say what???

I know this is off topic, but I really do not understand how most of these
hot fusion processes are ever going to make any sense at all.  Even if the
process produces real net energy gain, the biggest problems are the neutron
radiation and the materials consumption.

[This is close enough to topic to warrant posting.  --LS]

Most of the D+D and D+T reactions produce 80% of their energy as neutrons.
That's one Hell of a ton of radiation.  These kinds of plants could be
better named "radiation generators".  I can't imagine a process which has
more pollution.

I looked at the design of the ITER and the amount of Lithium blankets around
it is staggering.  The entire structure becomes so radioactive even after a
month of tests that no human can ever go inside it again.  They rely on a
robotic arm to do all servicing inside it, and of course it then becomes
radioactive itself.

A single D+D or D+T fusion power plant operating would likely consume all
the Lithium we have on this planet and make everything near it radioative.
The amount of radioactive waste produced by one of these power plants would
dwarf anything we have ever seen from fission.

The D+D and D+T are extremely "dirty" reactions in terms of heavy neutron

(Continue reading)

headers

operationquest | 11 Mar 2007 08:41

Re: Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?

This is going to go further off topic (sorry Luke), but I feel a need
to address this communication.

--- In hydrino@..., <sig5534 <at> ...> wrote:
>
> >> "You solve the world's pollution problems,"
> >> The appeals of fusion are many: no planet- warming gases, no
> >> radioactive-waste headache, plentiful fuel...
> 
> Say what???
> 
> I know this is off topic, but I really do not understand how most of
these
> hot fusion processes are ever going to make any sense at all.  Even
if the
> process produces real net energy gain, the biggest problems are the
neutron
> radiation and the materials consumption.
> 
> [This is close enough to topic to warrant posting.  --LS]
> 
> Most of the D+D and D+T reactions produce 80% of their energy as
neutrons.
> That's one Hell of a ton of radiation.  These kinds of plants could be
> better named "radiation generators".  I can't imagine a process
which has
> more pollution.
> 

It's still better than nuclear fission, which is the main point of

(Continue reading)

headers

Shane | 12 Mar 2007 05:17

Re: Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?


P.S. When I took a fusion class, my professor said he once gave an
essay question that went like this: "The devil comes to you one day
and offers you one of three pieces of intellectual property in
exchange for your soul: room-temperature superconductivity, a viable
first wall material, or an understanding of anomalous transport. Which
would you choose and why?" The point is, he said, any one of the three
would make fusion commercially viable today.

My comment: No economically viable first wall, no economically viable
fusion power for D-T. In which case you are back to B11, or moon
mining He3. The chances that any of these pan out, slim. However, by
all means fund them because the payoff could be huge. The focus fusion
guys think B11 is a possibility but then they are after government and
private cash! 

Yes fission has many problems but ADS thorium is more likely to pay
off than fusion, and waste/weapons problems are vastly smaller than
conventional fission.

My long term tip: space elevator/space based solar.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lOt0.A/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UIYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
 Web Site      http://www.hydrino.org

(Continue reading)

headers

rexxyellocat | 15 Mar 2007 18:37

Re: Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?

Nobody puts 10 billion Euro for a Bubble! 

What does it mean "if commercially viable" 
when a project is vital (like ITER)
or very important (like ISS Alpha or LHC in CERN)
for the future of menkind and especially if it is
backed up by most powerfull nations of the world ????

Neither ISS Alpha (international space station)
which is already costing 60+ billions of Euro,
nor LHC (Large Hadron Collider) in CERN costed 8 billions of Euro, 
and nor the giant fusion reactor in France which
will cost estimated 10 billion are commercially feasable! 
But menkind came together and just DO IT !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18625064.300

Cem

--- In hydrino@..., "Shane" <shanewilsonmail <at> ...> wrote:
>
> 
> P.S. When I took a fusion class, my professor said he once gave an
> essay question that went like this: "The devil comes to you one day
> and offers you one of three pieces of intellectual property in
> exchange for your soul: room-temperature superconductivity, a viable
> first wall material, or an understanding of anomalous transport. 
Which

(Continue reading)

headers

JimNLori | 17 Mar 2007 16:53

Re: Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?

I, too, hold some hope for a thorium fuel cycle. India is actively pursuing it as is Russia.

I am also intrigued by the "CR-39" cold fusion experiments. While there has been a lot of sloppy
experimentation in the "cold fusion" field, there also have been some well conducted ones. Therefore, I
have not written off "cold fusion" entirely.

Given the mathematical and physics errors in Mills' derivations, I don't see his theory being any
contribution - the software notwithstanding. His experiments don't appear definitively to prove the
existence of hydrinos. I am still waiting for the open-to-examination demonstration of over-unity
energy production- open to anyone who wants to poke and prod, that is. Not just those selected by Mills.

----- Original Message -----
From: Shane
To: hydrino@...
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:17 PM
Subject: HSG: Re: Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?

P.S. When I took a fusion class, my professor said he once gave an
essay question that went like this: "The devil comes to you one day
and offers you one of three pieces of intellectual property in
exchange for your soul: room-temperature superconductivity, a viable
first wall material, or an understanding of anomalous transport. Which
would you choose and why?" The point is, he said, any one of the three
would make fusion commercially viable today.

My comment: No economically viable first wall, no economically viable
fusion power for D-T. In which case you are back to B11, or moon
mining He3. The chances that any of these pan out, slim. However, by

(Continue reading)

headers

Shane | 11 Mar 2007 12:02

Re: Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?

You are right. D-T will never be economically viable because the
neutron flux will cause the containment wall to become brittle and
radioactive. You would have to regularly replace the walls. See the
recent post number 12285 on alternative fusion strategies. Google up
helium 3 and focus fusion. They might never fly, but D-T tokamak has
no chance. 

--- In hydrino@..., <sig5534 <at> ...> wrote:
>
> >> "You solve the world's pollution problems,"
> >> The appeals of fusion are many: no planet- warming gases, no
> >> radioactive-waste headache, plentiful fuel...
> 
> Say what???
> 
> I know this is off topic, but I really do not understand how most of
these
> hot fusion processes are ever going to make any sense at all.  Even
if the
> process produces real net energy gain, the biggest problems are the
neutron
> radiation and the materials consumption.
> 
> [This is close enough to topic to warrant posting.  --LS]
> 
> Most of the D+D and D+T reactions produce 80% of their energy as
neutrons.
> That's one Hell of a ton of radiation.  These kinds of plants could be
> better named "radiation generators".  I can't imagine a process
which has

(Continue reading)

headers

novel_compound | 12 Mar 2007 21:21

Fusion waste

Shane wrote,

<< You are right. D-T will never be economically viable because the 
neutron flux will cause the containment wall to become brittle and 
radioactive. You would have to regularly replace the walls. >>

FWIW, the "European Fusion Development Agreement" says,

"Fusion reactors will require advanced low activation materials to 
ensure fusion waste will not be a long-term burden to future 
generations. Advanced materials with low activation and good thermo-
mechanical properties such as low activation steel and silicon 
carbide composites are being developed within the long term fusion R 
& D programme. These materials must be resistant not only to neutrons 
but also to high surface heat loads and thermal cycling. To assess 
these materials it will be necessary to construct a test facility 
that can provide a similar neutron environment to that of a future 
fusion reactor. A proposal for such a facility is currently being 
considered under an international collaboration called IFMIF."

This it ITER's story and they're sticking to it:  

"For a fusion power reactor, low activation materials will be 
extensively used. These will experience a higher dose due to the 
higher neutron fluxes and their longer time than in the ITER machine, 
but they will have vastly reduced content of materials with a long 
radioactive half life. The amount of waste arising in a power reactor 
at shutdown would be similar to that in ITER, but after 100 years the 
amount left uncleared would be about 1000 t. (This could even be 
reduced further by judicious component cutting and dismantling, if

(Continue reading)