Fusing Atoms – when does it happen

The nucleus of an atom, like most everything else, is more complicated than we first thought. Just how much more complicated is the subject of a Petascale Early Science project led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s David Dean.

According to findings outlined by Dean and his colleagues in the May 20, 2011, edition of the journal Physical Review Letters, researchers who want to understand how and why a nucleus hangs together as it does and disintegrates when and how it does have a very tough job ahead of them.

(etc.)

Dean’s team, however, determined that the two-body force is not enough; researchers must also tackle the far more difficult challenge of calculating combinations of three particles at a time (three protons, three neutrons, or two of one and one of the other). This approach yields results that are both different from and more accurate than those of the two-body force.

(definitely read this one – it includes a brief explanation of the forces known to be at work.)

http://www.ornl.gov/info/features/get_feature.cfm?FeatureNumber=f20110712-00

**

DOE Energy Files Access Portal -

http://www.osti.gov/energyfiles/

**

A note on one of my cards says -

Germany looking for 10GW (to replace nuclear power facilities)

Hmm…………

***

Oh and the best choice from the DOE Energy Portal – (in my opinion, is this one) -

http://www.osti.gov/energyfiles/multi.html

(which offers multi-disciplinary tools) – and this one especially -

Federal R&D Project Summaries – Descriptions, awards, and summaries of federally funded research

**

And these -

Argonne Library’s Resources on the Internet – A repository of Internet sites for scientific research created and maintained by the library staff at Argonne National Laboratory

National Academies Press – The National Academies Press (NAP) was created by the National Academies to publish the reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, all operating under a charter granted by the Congress of the United States. The NAP publishes more than 200 books a year on a wide range of topics in science, engineering, and health.

Code of Federal Regulations – Government Printing Office (GPO) database containing text of public regulations issued by the agencies of the U.S. government

AND especially this one -

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) – Information on products and services including reference materials and data, calibrations, standards information, and other services

AND this one -

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Technical Reports – Full text technical reports from Oak Ridge National Laboratory

(from)

http://www.osti.gov/energyfiles/multi.html

**

These two software packages are interesting – however the first is from 2000 and the second from 2005 – there are probably better ones now – (11 years old and 6 years old, respectively) -

DYNA3D is a nonlinear explicit finite element code for analyzing 3-D structures and solid continuum. The code is vectorized and available on several computer platforms. The element library includes continuum, shell, beam, truss and spring/damper elements to allow maximum flexibility in modeling physical problems. Many materials are available to represent a wide range of material behavior, including elasticity, plasticity, composites, thermal effects and rate dependence. In addition, DYNA3D has a sophisticated contact interface capability, including frictional sliding, single surface contact and automatic contact generation.

PACKAGE ID	000138MLTPL01 DYNA3D2000*
KWIC Title	Explicit 3-D Hydrodynamic FEM Program

http://www.osti.gov/estsc/details.jsp?rcdid=3540

AND

CFDLib05 is the Los Alamos Computational Fluid Dynamics LIBrary. This is a collection of hydrocodes using a common data structure and a common numerical method, for problems ranging from single-field, incompressible flow, to multi-species, multi-field, compressible flow. The data structure is multi-block, with a so-called structured grid in each block. The numerical method is a Finite-Volume scheme employing a state vector that is fully cell-centered. This means that the integral form of the conservation laws is solved on the physical domain that is represented by a mesh of control volumes. The typical control volume is an arbitrary quadrilateral in 2D and an arbitrary hexahedron in 3D. The Finite-Volume scheme is for time-unsteady flow and remains well coupled by means of time and space centered fluxes; if a steady state solution is required, the problem is integrated forward in time until the user is satisfied that the state is stationary.

PACKAGE ID	000663SUN0002 CFDLIB05
KWIC Title	Computational Fluid Dynamics Library

http://www.osti.gov/estsc/details.jsp?rcdid=3545

**

Arrangements for them have to be made through the Dept. of Energy Resource Portal here – or from the pages linked above -

http://www.osti.gov/estsc/

However, there are probably better choices that are newer and handle information more effectively and efficiently.

Be aware that some software programs will average values as part of their programming approach. Regardless of whether this is a typical manner in which to handle data – to do so alters the facts upon whose integrity nearly all of our scientific and engineering theories are extrapolated.

- cricketdiane

***

There was a nifty 3-d modeling software program being pushed through a lot of physics and science websites to the researchers starting a few years ago. I was very excited about its ability to take large data arrays and model them until I discovered during a web live presentation about it from their companies technical reps that it averaged the values within the arrays as part of its paradigm for processing the information. So, behind the scenes – in the subroutines of the program, the data is actually being altered and then presented visually. I hated that about it and stopped having any interest in it.

And, here’s why -

First, I’ve found that it is a more common practice, both in science and in culling real world results data as well as in the display of those results using some of the modeling software that has been available over the last however many years.

And, second – I considered what that would mean in even the simplest scenario that I could consider – for instance, the cohesion values of concrete and cement. And, when I think of the impacts that averaging would have on that in particular, it is rather horrifying.

Third, that is probably a part of what has resulted in unnecessary dangers to human life and safety in some construction choices. In the example of cohesion factors for cement and concrete, those values (which might have been altered to average the data array in a lab, science or engineering environment for ease of handling, etc.) support decisions that are made at the design, construction and the financial decision-makers’ levels. So, what if a building is being designed, engineered and then built using these altered values (however slight) for the concrete being depended upon for strength and reliability? And, then what if, the financiers push to have corners cut further, citing as a margin of safety – values when viewed objectively – were simply altered by averaging. There is then, two places where the margin of safety supposedly built into the engineering and construction of these projects are narrowed and possibly to the point of exceeding the very range in the original margin of safety. Cohesion, for instance, is not a small thing that would have no impact, whether it is in the explanations of what is happening at the atomic level within molecules or within the structural materials that make up most of our living and working structures, dams, levees and other high priority projects for the public good.

Very.

I’m not naming the software in my description above, because they would probably frown upon it. And, it is apparently an all too common manner of handling large data sets of specific experimental real-world results in order to model them, compute the modeling of them or give visual interpretations of the things that data is suggesting. However, people who are choosing the software to be used by our labs would have to look specifically for whether the software does this averaging of values in its handling of the routines – my guess, is they might and they might not. Some results are visually stunning, but obviously wrong. And, how much of that is a result of this particular thing despite the equations being used having measured accuracy?

- cricketdiane

***

I noticed this – very interesting, too. -

Consequences are expressed numerically (e.g., the number of people potentially hurt or killed) and their likelihoods of occurrence are expressed as probabilities or frequencies (i.e., the number of occurrences or the probability of occurrence per unit time). The total risk is the expected loss: the sum of the products of the consequences multiplied by their probabilities.

In the case of many accidents, probabilistic risk assessment models do not account for unexpected failure modes:[2]

At Japan’s Kashiwazaki Kariwa reactors, for example, after the 2007 Chuetsu earthquake some radioactive materials escaped into the sea when ground subsidence pulled underground electric cables downward and created an opening in the reactor’s basement wall. As a Tokyo Electric Power Company official remarked then, “It was beyond our imagination that a space could be made in the hole on the outer wall for the electric cables.”[2]

When it comes to future safety, nuclear designers and operators often assume that they know what is likely to happen, which is what allows them to assert that they have planned for all possible contingencies. Yet there is one weakness of the probabilistic risk assessment method that has been emphatically demonstrated with the Fukushima I nuclear accidents — the difficulty of modeling common-cause or common-mode failures:[2]

(etc.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_risk_assessment

**

And in its “References” section – it lists these two of importance, certainly -

1. ^ Centrale Nucléaire de Fessenheim : appréciation du risque sismique RÉSONANCE Ingénieurs-Conseils SA, published 2007-09-05, accessed 2011-03-30
2. ^ ^{a b c d e f} M. V. Ramana (19 April 2011). “Beyond our imagination: Fukushima and the problem of assessing risk”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/beyond-our-imagination-fukushima-and-the-problem-of-assessing-risk.

**

AND This -

(in another entry)

Cost–benefit analysis is often used by governments and others, e.g. businesses, to evaluate the desirability of a given intervention. It is an analysis of the cost effectiveness of different alternatives in order to see whether the benefits outweigh the costs (i.e. whether it is worth intervening at all), and by how much (i.e. which intervention to choose). The aim is to gauge the efficiency of the interventions relative to each other and the status quo.

Valuation

The costs of an intervention are usually financial. The overall benefits of a government intervention are often evaluated in terms of the public’s willingness to pay for them, minus their willingness to pay to avoid any adverse effects. The guiding principle of evaluating benefits is to list all parties affected by an intervention and place a value, usually monetary, on the (positive or negative) effect it has on their welfare as it would be valued by them. Putting actual values on these is often difficult; surveys or inferences from market behavior are often used.

One source of controversy is placing a monetary value of human life, e.g. when assessing road safety measures or life-saving medicines. However, this can sometimes be avoided by using the related technique of cost-utility analysis, in which benefits are expressed in non-monetary units such as quality-adjusted life years. For example, road safety can be measured in terms of ‘cost per life saved’, without placing a financial value on the life itself.

CBA usually tries to put all relevant costs and benefits on a common temporal footing using time value of money formulas. This is often done by converting the future expected streams of costs and benefits into a present value amount using a suitable discount rate.

Risk associated with the outcome of projects is also usually taken into account using probability theory.

Accuracy problems

The accuracy of the outcome of a cost–benefit analysis depends on how accurately costs and benefits have been estimated.

A peer-reviewed study [14] of the accuracy of cost estimates in transportation infrastructure planning found that for rail projects actual costs turned out to be on average 44.7 percent higher than estimated costs, and for roads 20.4 percent higher (Flyvbjerg, Holm, and Buhl, 2002). For benefits, another peer-reviewed study [15] found that actual rail ridership was on average 51.4 percent lower than estimated ridership; for roads it was found that for half of all projects estimated traffic was wrong by more than 20 percent (Flyvbjerg, Holm, and Buhl, 2005). Comparative studies indicate that similar inaccuracies apply to fields other than transportation. These studies indicate that the outcomes of cost–benefit analyses should be treated with caution because they may be highly inaccurate. Inaccurate cost–benefit analyses likely to lead to inefficient decisions, as defined by Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks efficiency .These outcomes (almost always tending to underestimation unless significant new approaches are used) are to be expected because such estimates:

1. Rely heavily on past like projects (often differing markedly in function or size and certainly in the skill levels of the team members)
2. Rely heavily on the project’s members to identify (remember from their collective past experiences) the significant cost drivers
3. Rely on very crude heuristics to estimate the money cost of the intangible elements
4. Are unable to completely dispel the usually unconscious biases of the team members (who often have a vested interest in a decision to go ahead) and the natural psychological tendency to “think positive” (whatever that involves)

Reference class forecasting was developed to increase accuracy in estimates of costs and benefits.[15]

Another challenge to cost–benefit analysis comes from determining which costs should be included in an analysis (the significant cost drivers). This is often controversial because organizations or interest groups may think that some costs should be included or excluded from a study.

In the case of the Ford Pinto (where, because of design flaws, the Pinto was liable to burst into flames in a rear-impact collision), the Ford company’s decision was not to issue a recall. Ford’s cost–benefit analysis had estimated that based on the number of cars in use and the probable accident rate, deaths due to the design flaw would run about $49.5 million (the amount Ford would pay out of court to settle wrongful death lawsuits). This was estimated to be less than the cost of issuing a recall ($137.5 million) [16]. In the event, Ford overlooked (or considered insignificant) the costs of the negative publicity so engendered, which turned out to be quite significant (because it led to the recall anyway and to measurable losses in sales).

(etc.)

In the case of environmental and occupational health regulation, it has been argued that if modern cost-benefit analyses had been applied prospectively to proposed regulations such as removing lead from gasoline, not turning the Grand Canyon into a hydroelectric dam, and regulating workers’ exposure to vinyl chloride, these regulations would not have been implemented even though they are considered to be highly successful in retrospect.[16] The Clean Air Act has been cited in retrospective studies as a case where benefits exceeded costs, but the knowledge of the benefits (attributable largely to the benefits of reducing particulate pollution) was not available until many years later.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-benefit_analysis

**

My Note -

First, it looks like at one time these analysis forms were used to actually consider the various choices and then at some point became an intentional method to support or undermine certain choices using those analysis forms. That is backwards, but seems to be common now and over the last thirty years, particularly in the last twenty-five or so years – and especially in America.

Second, it appears to me that the course taken for choices by industry, businesses and government, often too, by lobbies and industry serving groups, detracts from “fixing” a known problem which could negatively people’s lives and safety and is known to be a continuing risk to people’s lives and safety.

And, third, – I find no excuse for doing it that way.

- cricketdiane

***

And, fourth – It is not in the best interest of our society to do it that way, regardless of the cost to benefit analysis that supports doing it that way.

**

So, you might be wondering how the things at the beginning of this post have anything to do with the decision-making analysis forms that appear next -

The question that I was trying to answer about nuclear fusion, use of other power source alternatives such as geothermal power, and a number of other things – finally came down to – upon what basis are the decisions being made, who is making them, why are they believing those are the best choices for them to make and why are these decision-makers not considering any other choices as viable and appropriate?

And, secondly, the moment when a system is known to have a risk of causing massive harm, permanent harm and even, loss of life to people, why isn’t it changed immediately and appropriately? And, why does it take so long to change a known danger, once it is known? And, why isn’t something else adopted in a timely manner, once a known risk higher than anticipated is defined, studied, recognized and accepted?

(Okay – the question included a number of related questions. However, the impacts of the answers I found to these questions touch every single part of our modern society’s set of wonders and the dangers of them from buildings and homes to airplanes and nuclear power – etc. ad infinitum along with the decisions being made that impact all of us. When a civil engineer and his set of corporate contract holders who are directing decisions for their desired outcome make decisions for whatever reason, they impact what will happen to the people walking by their project after it is completed over the course of many years, they impact the people living and working in and around it, and they impact the health and safety of the lives in any way negatively touched by what they’re building.

If a bridge falls, people can be permanently maimed which impacts not only the community where they live, but each of their family members and their children for the remaining course of their lives. So, my question was – why would the civil engineers, local governments and businesses involved with construction and design of a bridge or the repair and replacement of a bridge treat it as nobody’s business but their own in how they go about it? (Just one example of many.)

When nuclear power is the only choice and it isn’t done safely, there is no way for the mind to grasp how many generations of people are impacted by it. That isn’t only the business of those involved with it as a business, nor simply for the regulators to serve the desires of that industry without further consideration of its potential costs to human lives and our society’s best interest. The same is true for safety of our planes, our airline industry, our construction industry’s choices, our financial backers insistence on cutting corners in all sorts of things, and a multitude of other things. (also as examples of the same, but auto industry, for instance, and others can be included as well.)

The cost to benefit decision tree models are effectively removing projects that would be beneficial to mankind and re-routing funding based upon those findings – regardless of how inappropriate it has become to do so and at what costs to all of us. These formats are also being used to support the continued use in the same manner of things that do need to be changed and are known to need to be changed. We have had countless situations where human lives were lost or permanently altered in the most horrific and negative ways as a result of not making changes in a timely manner where there were known dangers that had been identified (and, often, even as there were known solutions that could have been economically, effectively and appropriately applied in a timely manner.)

***

US Energy Information – Total Energy Used, Resourced, being Developed, in Reserve, etc Monthly Data – EIA – Total Energy

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/index.cfm

**

Just found this – from a twitter -

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1S4bVS/inhabitat.com/worlds-largest-solar-energy-office-building-opens-in-china/

A vast fan-shaped compound in China has officially taken the title of “largest solar-powered office building in the world“. Located in Dezhou in the Shangdong Province in northwest China

Read more: World’s Largest Solar Energy Office Building Opens in China | Inhabitat – Green Design Will Save the World

Absolutely – Amazing.

**

 

 

Unbelievably Stupid – its an energy design question and the answer that is in use right now

Producing steam to drive a turbine and generator is relatively easy, and a light water reactor running at 350°C does this readily. As the above section and Figure show, other types of reactor are required for higher temperatures. A 2010 US Department of Energy document quotes 500°C for a liquid metal cooled reactor (FNR), 860°C for a molten salt reactor (MSR), and 950°C for a high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTR). Lower-temperature reactors can be used with supplemental gas heating to reach higher temperatures, though employing an LWR would not be practical or economic.

The DOE said that high reactor outlet temperatures in the range 750 to 950°C were required to satisfy all end user requirements evaluated to date for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf32.html

***

I noticed this last night as I was looking for the other nuclear reactor form in use at some research facilities. But, I had just read a very interesting article about the size, scale and weight currently in use for turbines that are being run by the nuclear power industry’s large scale reactors, such as commonly in use. And, it occurred to me that 40 tons is a lot of weight to be moving for a turbine blade which could very well be the reason many ideas are shelved, and why a temperature of 750 – 950 degrees C is required as noted above by the DOE’s guidelines.

That is the same as moving an entire rocket in the dense space requirements of a nuclear power plant in size and scale – just to turn the turbines from the steam to make electricity. It was also created upon a design and materials choices were made from a time when robotic manufacturing was not operational and materials science had not created many of the new high-strength, lower weight types of materials we can choose from now, (even on those massive scales of size and extreme conditions of heat and pressure.)

Here is the link to that article about the size of turbine blades and components being placed in the nuclear plant systems (and probably other power generating systems) which the industry fuel systems and power workhorse “sources” are required to move:

http://www.industryweek.com/articles/u-s-_cedes_capability_for_largest_nuclear_forgings_19453.aspx?ShowAll=1

A generator rotor weights in excess of 200 tons, according to Craig Hanson, vice president and product line manager for nuclear plant builder for Babcock & Wilcox. And, for each nuclear plant, there are three to four turbine rotors. ( . . . )

In the late 1960s, designers discovered that larger forgings had better mechanical properties, requiring less welding and therefore less inspection requirements over the life of a plant. These larger forgings became a signature of Generation II plants and all others that have followed.

But, by choosing larger forgings, even the most powerful domestic steel producers, such as U.S. Steel and the now-defunct Bethlehem Steel, were shut out of the supply chain.

“In the interest of efficiency, the companies that built nuclear reactors made their reactors bigger,” says Mike Kamnikar, senior vice president for marketing and business development at The Ellwood Group, a forging group. “The biggest ingot that could be made by Bethlehem Steel or U.S. Steel in the 1970′s was roughly 380 tons. Bethlehem and U.S. Steel each had 8,000- ton presses, but the presses didn’t have enough clearance to make these big rings, which were over 200 inches in diameter.”

Four of the most complex parts of a nuclear power plant — the containment vessel, the reactor vessel components, the turbine rotors and steam generators — are made from over 4,000 tons of steel forgings, and almost none of those components are manufactured in the United States.

(etc.)

http://www.industryweek.com/articles/u-s-_cedes_capability_for_largest_nuclear_forgings_19453.aspx?ShowAll=1

***

My Note -

No wonder it has to be 950 degrees Celsius to move the damn turbine rotors – Damn.

So, what dingleberry made the decision that we must move 200 ton rotors to make electricity? That is like making a massive flywheel out of the densest, heaviest material such as lead and then demanding excessive power to be manufactured simply to get its motion started for no other reason than the material used for it. Maybe that made sense in designs from the 1930′s which were being used for 1960′s decisions and scale ups which took no consideration of the alloys, unique materials and composites or manufacturing process choices we have today. If that material strength and durability could be created without weighing 200 tons – what temperature range to move it could be opened up for those systems? As if it isn’t bad enough that nuclear power is no more than a $10 billion dollar steam kettle, the fact is – choices being made about some components are driving the requirements for its throughput power. That doesn’t even make any good sense. These people have a lot more money and intelligent resources than I have, why haven’t they redesigned the rotor materials to accommodate new choices available in the marketplace today? I don’t understand.

There are potentially system choices that could be made using other novel approaches from geothermal sources to nuclear fusion, but not if the only temperature range to be required for them in order to move 200 ton rotors / turbine blades runs over 750 degrees Celsius. And, I’m guessing it is the top of that range which is more desirable for those massive constructs to move efficiently for producing electricity. That is insane. The only way that would make sense would be if there were no other choices of materials available to do that work without the weight inherent in steel. And, steel isn’t the strongest material we have today, nor the least costly to produce either.

- cricketdiane

***

Well. How about that?

No wonder it is costing so much to produce these power plants and costing so much to create electricity with them as well. There has to be better answers than that. And, on top of it – as much as I do want the global economy stimulated as well – I’m an American first and there is no advantage to American economic foundations, for producing large forgings of steel for these items which are made elsewhere, shipped by companies based elsewhere and supporting every other economy besides our own as these power plants are built using unnecessary material requirements and constraints. So, with nuclear power plants, not only are we moving 200 ton rotors to get electricity, we have all the other drawbacks of the system as well – it utilizes our money and funding to do it, why don’t the engineers and scientists simply redesign it in a form that is more appropriate to today’s materials science menu.

Hmmm……….

***

This was the nifty reactor design I was looking up last night which I had found earlier (and there is another one that I remember too, which I still want to find) -

MIT Reactor Core

Nov 26th 2009alm11961HW

Although it seems strange, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology- in the city of Cambridge has on its campus a small nuclear reactor core surrounded on the outside by concrete. It was built in 1958, then renovated in 1975. This reactor runs on enriched Uranium 235 and is used to generate neutrons. It does not generate enough high pressure or hot temperatures to make heat energy.

http://blogs.cas.suffolk.edu/alm11961/

**

And this one – which General Fusion has a very nifty device already designed – (they’re working on it now) – Need to tell them to redesign the systems’ harness and rotor materials to make it viable obviously – I mean in the turbine system it will be required to run. Damn ridiculous – 200 ton rotors, that is 2,000, 2,200 pounds per ton or something – what kind of math is that?? Superfluid transport and then have to move flywheels of lead (or actually something massively worse and more constrained than that.)

Magnetized target fusion (MTF) is a relatively new approach to producing fusion power that combines features of the more widely studied magnetic confinement fusion (MCF) and inertial confinement fusion (ICF) approaches. Like the magnetic approach, the fusion fuel is confined at lower density by magnetic fields while it is heated into a plasma. Like the inertial approach, fusion is initiated by rapidly squeezing the target to greatly increase fuel density, and thus temperature. Although the resulting density is far lower than in traditional ICF, it is thought that the combination of longer confinement times and better heat retention will let MTF yield the same efficiencies, yet be far easier to build.

MTF is currently being studied mostly by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), and by Canadian startup company, General Fusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetized_target_fusion

**

(I’m still thinking about the nuclear power industry’s insistence on massively scaled turbines with weight configurations discussed in the industry article near the top of this post.)

I bet there have been lots of scientists and engineers who didn’t understand why their work was being considered as less than desirable by the DOE and the energy industry when the real target that was being missed was this 950 degree Celsius mark required to turn rotors with the weight of a small skyscraper each. The decisions being made against certain energy forms and choices would have been decided by (DOE et al.) based on the idea that everything had to match into that existing system application (and its constraints) in order to viable. That means, geothermal sources wouldn’t have even been in the playbook and neither would a multitude of other choices. And rather than to redesign the system constraints with those massive forgings of appreciable weight in steel made into something more applicable to today’s materials, every other source possibility was simply treated as some bastardized child wasting the taxpayers’ money even as they allocated some pittance to it.

It seems we could take the same “system” and choose a geothermal source and manner of access to it – but make the turbine components of new materials with lower weight to strength ratios with durability, high structural integrity and (tested) long term reliability characteristics and within the next three years, place it online to provide electricity much faster than trying to create the temperatures of the sun through fusion and harness it for the power to turn 200 ton turbine rotors. Honestly.

And, it also seems that this would be the best time to consider redesigning the rotor materials in light of the fact that companies all over the US and the world are begging for business and contracts to use the wonderful new things they know how to do now. The materials that are available, the new manufacturing processes and the new carbon nanomaterials companies are desperate for the opportunities to make these applications of the things they have available. And, they would do it right now.

I’m so sick of hearing throughout my adult life that we are forever 30 years away from doing anything. Maybe that works to get funding for more research and more research and more research, but at what point is that costing us far more than the time that we continue to wait for any of that research to be available to make our lives better? I can understand why the nuclear industry may not want to make any changes to the system they have in place right now and the ways they are doing it. My guess is that they make money at every single stage of the process and may even own part of the profits of the large forging manufacturers, the mine operations to provide the raw materials and the shippers that ship these things at every stage of the process. I wouldn’t doubt it. But some of these decisions need to be re-analyzed in light of what we know now. And, many of these decisions including cost-to-benefit ratios have changed significantly. Probabilistic assessments failed to compute accurately the various scenarios that were even contemplated, which reality has now shown us could, and in fact, would be likely, let alone to have accurately depicted the drawbacks and dangers that have recently been discovered.

We have at least 8 million businesses involved in some form of something which has to do with the energy industry, easily. We have plenty of money throughout those industry sources which the energy sector businesses enjoy almost without reserve or even with any further consideration of what they are asking to do. Surely, some of those funds and intelligent brain power could be used to resolve these issues for them, which include decisions made on power systems and energy sources (and design decisions) that were made with facts of some earlier time rather than the facts of today.

If a decision was even based in today which failed to account for those changes in information – it would be faulty. In 1960 and in 1970, the software didn’t exist to do the things we can do today, the equipment available for testing and for modeling did not exist in its current forms, the robotic manufacturing with computer software control systems did not exist in the same range of possibilities and the raw materials costs along with shipping and processing costs were of a completely different scale when those decisions were made than it is today.

It isn’t enough to have added a few new figures to the analysis to explain the difference and make an adjusted comparison. The entire supply chain is different now and what may have not been viable in the past, is in many cases, more viable today and existing systems in the manner they were originally designed and computed for costs – may be far more costly than anticipated. Those original 40 year old facts and figures for comparison simply do need to be re-analyzed and what is remarkable is that – it shouldn’t take years, upon years, upon years of manhours to do that. (Although I’m sure there will be a way to do it like that where in fifty more years, we are still waiting for those results – much as we are today on some things.)

Damn.

950 Degrees Celsius to make a power system that works . . .

So it can turn four 200 ton turbine blade rotors with the weight of a mid-sized skyscraper each – in order to make electricity.

And, anything that can’t do that isn’t even considered with any appreciable respect and funding . . .

Damn.

**

And,

“they” (in business, energy industry and government energy agencies) want scientists and engineers to create a small sun on earth using fusion so they can power a steam kettle to make electricity much as they are doing now through nuclear fission to heat water.

Yep, that’s about it . . .

That’s ridiculous.

That is wrong on so many levels and in so many ways as to be unbelievably misguided.

But, then who am I to say – I’m sure it must be me that is misguided about it. Having a small contained sun on our planet thirty years from now driving a fusion reactor to put steam into some massively weighted system of components to make steam to drive turbines also massively weighted – is probably the “right way to do it” in their estimation.

Well, obviously.

And in the meantime, as our planets’ population hits the 7 billion persons mark with its increased need for power generating capacity, electricity in general, fuel sources and increased desire for more extensive power grids, and even as raw materials get scarier in the harvesting of them being used – we are supposed to say nothing and wait another thirty years for these power options to be available while enduring nuclear fission based steam kettle systems we  have or are building now with all their dangers and drawbacks.

Hmmm… I don’t think so. That would have to be wrong.

- cricketdiane

**

Okay – on to other things -

This article (linked below)  is very interesting about a nuclear powered bomber the US produced in 1944 – 1957/1960′s program time period. It was apparently successful, but the idea of having a flying nuclear generator overhead was unappealing -  as I can imagine. Although that doesn’t seem to matter with planes that are armed with nuclear missiles or bombs on board. Hmmm. Interesting technology notes on the nuclear power systems considered and tested during the program can be found in this wonderful article about the plane -

http://www.aviation-history.com/articles/nuke-american.htm

In 1949, the program ran a series of tests, known as the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment (HTRE), involving three types of reactors, with the purpose of determining the most efficient method of transferring energy from the reactor. After an extensive trial series, the HTRE-3 emerged as the selected transfer system. The HTRE-3 was a Direct-Cycle Configuration. In a direct cycle system, the air entered the engine through the compressor of the turbojet, it then moved to a plenum intake that directs the air to the core of the reactor.

At this point the air, serving as the reactor coolant, is super-heated as it travels through the core. After that stage, it goes to another plenum intake; from there the air is directed to the turbine section of the engine and eventually to the tailpipe. This configuration allowed the aircraft engine to start on chemical power and then switch to nuclear heat as soon as the core reached optimized operational temperatures, thus providing the proposed aircraft the ability to take-off and land on conventional power.

Another system considered was the Indirect-Cycle Configuration (not shown here, my note). In this configuration, the air did not go through the reactor core, air instead passed through a heat exchanger. The heat generated by the reactor is carried by liquid metal or highly pressurized water, to the heat exchanger where the air is, thus heating the air in its way to the turbine.

**

And this one -

http://www.britishcarbon.org/images.shtml

Neutron Activated Graphite.
Lorraine McDermott, School of Materials, Manchester
Autoradiographic image of neutron activated graphite from the British Experimental Pile Zero (BEPO) nuclear reactor core. The core was operational from 1948-1968 with a final decommissioning date scheduled for 2022. Autoradiography produces a visual distribution pattern of radiation, where the specimen is the source of the radiation. Autoradiography therefore provides information on the distribution of radioactivity within a sample. This information is being used to understand how thermal and leaching treatments may reduce the activity of nuclear graphite waste. The area of this autoradiography image is 6 x 9 mm. Hot (i.e. red) colours indicate higher activity.

(and other nifty stuff)

**

A reminder that any major critical incident at a nuclear power plant is not an isolated contained event – it affects the entire world along with food sources available that are required to serve populations -

Early projections of fallout dispersal from Fukushima – (now radioactive materials are in food sources including beef, sea sources, and others of various measures have been found in drinking water, milk, vegetables, etc. in Japan) -

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/5712

A challenge that lies ahead will be how to clean up massive amounts of debris from the tsunami and quake, some of which may now be radioactive. “They’re going to have t come with a plan and a repository,” Jemmex said, adding that includes creating designated clean-up zones to allow materials to cool down.

(etc. – includes world map with expected contamination effects – regardless of the degree – this means it is not simply the business of the energy industry, the nuclear industry owners, the individual nation involved or the moneyed decision makers in some isolation – considering the damage possible is extensively life altering for both neighbors and those far removed from the location of the event. – my note)

Core damage confirmed at 3 reactors; spent fuel rods a rising concern at 4th;
U.S. urges evacuation within 80 kilometers (50 Miles) around stricken plants

March 16, 2011 (San Diego) – The United Nations has released a forecast indicating a radioactive plume from damaged Japanese nuclear reactors at Fujushima Daiichi cold reach the Aleutian Islands off Alaska on Thursday and Southern California late on Friday, then east to Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and likely points beyond.

The U.N. has not issued a statement on how much radiation the plume could contain, however numerous other experts have indicated that amounts are expected to be small and below levels likely to harm human health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is setting up additional radiation monitors on the West Coast as a precaution. An existing monitor in San Diego is currently non-operational, according to the EPA’s RadNet real-time radiation monitoring database online. ( . . . )

***

This wikipedia page explains the various states of matter and has really nifty pictures, too. It presents an overview and a new explanation of the definitions that have come to be accepted. (this is just a little of it – well worth reading through all of it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter

Under extremely high pressure, ordinary matter undergoes a transition to a series of exotic states of matter collectively known as degenerate matter. In these conditions, the structure of matter is supported by the Pauli exclusion principle. These are of great interest to astrophysicists, because these high-pressure conditions are believed to exist inside stars that have used up their nuclear fusion “fuel”, such as white dwarfs and neutron stars.

Electron-degenerate matter is found inside white dwarf stars. Electrons remain bound to atoms but are able to transfer to adjacent atoms. Neutron-degenerate matter is found in neutron stars. Vast gravitational pressure compresses atoms so strongly that the electrons are forced to combine with protons via inverse beta-decay, resulting in a superdense conglomeration of neutrons. (Normally free neutrons outside an atomic nucleus will decay with a half life of just under 15 minutes, but in a neutron star, as in the nucleus of an atom, other effects stabilize the neutrons.)

Supersolid

Main article: Supersolid

A supersolid is a spatially ordered material (that is, a solid or crystal) with superfluid properties. Similar to a superfluid, a supersolid is able to move without friction but retains a rigid shape. Although a supersolid is a solid, it exhibits so many characteristic properties different from other solids that many argue it is another state of matter.^[12]

(etc.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter

***

Brief explanation of nuclear propulsion used mainly in submarines (fission heat products to steam process) -

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/eng/reactor.html

In the early 1950s work was initiated at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to develop reactor prototypes for the US Navy. The Naval Reactors Facility, a part of the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, was established to support development of naval nuclear propulsion. The facility is operated by Westinghouse Electric Corporation under the direct supervision of the DOE’s Office of Naval Reactors. The facility supports the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program by carrying out assigned testing, examination, and spent fuel management activities.

The facility consists of three naval nuclear reactor prototype plants, the Expended Core Facility, and various support buildings. The submarine thermal reactor prototype was constructed in 1951 and shut down in 1989; the large ship reactor prototype was constructed in 1958 and shut down in 1994; and the submarine reactor plant prototype was constructed in 1965 and shut down in 1995. The prototypes were used to train sailors for the nuclear navy and for research and development purposes. The Expended Core Facility, which receives, inspects, and conducts research on naval nuclear fuel, was constructed in 1958 and is still operational.

The initial power run of the prototype reactor (S1W) for the first nuclear submarine, the Nautilus, was conducted at the INEEL in 1953. The A1W prototype facility consists of a dual-pressurized water reactor plant within a portion of the steel hull designed to replicate the aircraft carrier Enterprise. This facility began operations in 1958 and was the first designed to have two reactors providing power to the propeller shaft of one ship. The S5G reactor is a prototype pressurized water reactor that operates in either a forced or natural circulation flow mode. Coolant flow through the reactor is caused by thermal circulation rather than pumps. The S5G prototype plant was installed in an actual submarine hull section capable of simulating the rolling motions of a ship at sea. The unique contributions of these three reactor prototypes to the development of the United States Nuclear Navy make them potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

The Test Reactor Area (TRA) occupies 102 acres in the southwest portion of the INEL. The TRA was established in the early 1950s with the development of the Materials Test Reactor. Two other major reactors were subsequently built at the TRA: the Engineering Test Reactor and the Advanced Test Reactor. The Engineering Test Reactor has been inactive since January 1982. The Materials Test Reactor was shut down in 1970, and the building is now used for offices, storage, and experimental test areas. The major program at the TRA is now the Advanced Test Reactor. Since the Advanced Test Reactor achieved criticality in 1967, it’s been used almost exclusively by the Department of Energy’s Naval Reactors Program. After almost 30 years of operation, this reactor is still considered a premier test facility. And it’s projected to remain a major facility for research, radiation testing, and isotope production into the next century.

(etc.)

From

Federation of American Scientists website – entry found here -(well worth reading all of it – has great diagrams too.) -

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/eng/reactor.html

Here is their main page link -

http://www.fas.org/index.html

**

Nifty Energy Stuff and Fusion

From the wikipedia entry on Leo Szilard -

During his time in Berlin he was working on numerous technical inventions. For example, in 1928 he submitted a patent application for the linear accelerator and, in 1929, he applied for a patent for the cyclotron. During the 1926-1930 period, he worked with Einstein to develop a refrigerator, notable because it had no moving parts.^[4] Szilard’s 1929 paper, Über die Entropieverminderung in einem thermodynamischen System bei Eingriffen intelligenter Wesen” (On the reduction of entropy in a thermodynamic system by the interference of an intelligent being) Z. Physik 53, 840-856, introduced the thought experiment now called Szilard’s engine and was important in the history of attempts to understand Maxwell’s demon.

Developing the idea of the nuclear chain reaction

An image from the Fermi–Szilárd “neutronic reactor” patent

Szilárd went to London in 1933 where he read an article in The Times summarizing a speech given by Ernest Rutherford in which he rejected the possibility of using atomic energy for practical purposes. Rutherford’s speech remarked specifically on the recent 1932 work of his students John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton in “splitting” lithium into alpha particles, by bombardment with protons from a particle accelerator they had constructed:

We might in these processes obtain very much more energy than the proton supplied, but on the average we could not expect to obtain energy in this way. It was a very poor and inefficient way of producing energy, and anyone who looked for a source of power in the transformation of the atoms was talking moonshine. But the subject was scientifically interesting because it gave insight into the atoms.^[5]

Although the atom had been split and energy released, nuclear fission had not yet been discovered. However Szilárd was reportedly so annoyed at Rutherford’s dismissal that on the same day the article about the Rutherford speech was printed in the morning paper, Szilard conceived of the idea of nuclear chain reaction (analogous to a chemical chain reaction), using recently-discovered neutrons. The idea did not use the mechanism of nuclear fission, which was not then known, but Szilárd realized that if neutrons could initiate any sort of energy-producting nuclear reaction, such as the one that had occurred in lithium, and could be produced themselves by the same reaction, energy might be obtained with little input, since the reaction would be self-sustaining. The following year he filed for a patent on the concept of the neutron-induced nuclear chain reaction. Richard Rhodes described Szilárd’s moment of inspiration:

In London, where Southampton Row passes Russell Square, across from the British Museum in Bloomsbury, Leo Szilard waited irritably one gray Depression morning for the stoplight to change. A trace of rain had fallen during the night; Tuesday, September 12, 1933, dawned cool, humid and dull. Drizzling rain would begin again in early afternoon. When Szilard told the story later he never mentioned his destination that morning. He may have had none; he often walked to think. In any case another destination intervened. The stoplight changed to green. Szilard stepped off the curb. As he crossed the street time cracked open before him and he saw a way to the future, death into the world and all our woes, the shape of things to come.^[6]

Szilárd first attempted to create a nuclear chain reaction using beryllium and indium, but these elements did not produce a chain reaction. During 1936, he assigned the chain-reaction patent to the British Admiralty to ensure its secrecy (GB 630726 ). Szilárd also was the co-holder, with Nobel Laureate Enrico Fermi, of the patent on the nuclear reactor (U.S. Patent 2,708,656).

During 1938 Szilárd accepted an offer to conduct research at Columbia University in Manhattan, and moved to New York, and was soon joined by Fermi. After learning about the successful nuclear fission experiment conducted during 1939 in Germany by Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassmann, Lise Meitner, and Otto Robert Frisch, Szilárd and Fermi concluded that uranium would be the element capable of sustaining a chain reaction. Szilárd and Fermi conducted a simple experiment at Columbia and discovered significant neutron multiplication in uranium, proving that the chain reaction was possible and enabling nuclear weapons. Szilárd later described the event: “We turned the switch and saw the flashes. We watched them for a little while and then we switched everything off and went home.” He understood the implications and consequences of this discovery, though. “That night, there was very little doubt in my mind that the world was headed for grief.”^[6]

At around that time the Germans and others were in a race to produce a nuclear chain reaction. German attempts to control the chain reaction sought to do so using graphite, but these attempts proved unsuccessful. Szilárd realized graphite was indeed perfect for controlling chain reactions, just as the Germans had determined, but that the German method of producing graphite used boron carbide rods, and the minute amount of boron impurities in the manufactured graphite was enough to stop the chain reaction. Szilárd had graphite manufacturers produce boron-free graphite. As a result, the first human-controlled chain reaction occurred on December 2, 1942.^[7]

The Manhattan Project

(etc. – see link below for rest of entry including some information about the Manhattan Program efforts)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%B3_Szil%C3%A1rd

**

1911 – Heike Kamerlingh Onnes discloses his research on metallic low-temperature phenomenon characterised by no electrical resistance, calling it superconductivity.

(from a timeline of low-temperature discoveries on wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_low-temperature_technology

**

1937 – Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa, John F. Allen, and Don Misener discover superfluidity using helium-4 at 2.2 K

1986 – Karl Alexander Müller and J. Georg Bednorz discover high-temperature superconductivity

2000 – Peter Toennies demonstrates superfluidity of hydrogen at 0.15 K

**

APS has put the entire Physical Review archive online, back to 1893. Focus Landmarks feature important papers from the archive.

http://focus.aps.org/story/v21/st3

A long series of discoveries beginning with Einstein’s relativity in 1905 led up to Bethe’s discovery of the correct nuclear reactions. Hydrogen fusion seemed like a good candidate because according to E = mc², the small mass difference between the fusing hydrogen and the resulting helium would liberate an enormous amount of energy. Also, spectral analysis in the 1920s revealed that most stars, including the sun, are mostly hydrogen. Another important piece of the puzzle was the development of quantum mechanics, including essential concepts like tunneling, which allows some classically forbidden reactions to occur with a small probability.

In his papers, Bethe worked out two nuclear reaction mechanisms whereby fusion would occur. In one mechanism, two protons fuse together as one transforms into a neutron to form a so-called deuteron. The deuteron captures a proton, making a helium-3 nucleus, which further reacts to produce helium-4. The other mechanism, called the C-N-O cycle, assumes a small amount of carbon is present to catalyze a reaction chain that involves nitrogen and oxygen intermediaries and ultimately produces helium nuclei from protons.

While Bethe correctly identified the two possible mechanisms of solar fusion, he incorrectly judged which was responsible for energy production in our sun. “The most important source of energy in ordinary stars,” he wrote in the first sentence of the second paper, “is the reaction of carbon and nitrogen with protons.”

Bethe concluded that proton-proton fusion dominates energy production only in stars that are about 1000 times fainter than the sun. The problem was that in the 1930s, the sun’s core temperature was thought to be about 20 million degrees. The true temperature is closer to 14 million degrees. We now know that proton-proton fusion is the energy source of our sun. Only in more massive stars is the C-N-O cycle relevant.

(from)

Phys. Rev. 55, 103
(issue of January 1939)
Phys. Rev. 55, 434
(issue of March 1939)
Titles and Authors

posted -
23 January 2008

by –Jason Socrates Bardi

Jason Socrates Bardi is a senior science writer at the American Institute of Physics.

Physical Review Focus

American Physical Society

http://focus.aps.org/story/v21/st3

Energy Production in Stars H. A. Bethe Phys. Rev. 55, 103 (issue of January 1939)

Energy Production in Stars H. A. Bethe Phys. Rev. 55, 434 (issue of March 1939)

Related Information:

• 1967 Nobel Prize in physics

***

- cricketdiane

**

Definitely worth seeing -

Hydrogen Core Convection in a 15 Solar Mass Main Sequence Star

Core Convection in a 15 Solar Mass Main Sequence Star

Especially this one -

http://www.supersci.org/movies/stellar/kuhlen/rv_clat.H.rotating.png

• rotating:

• images: (radial velocity)

AND This – which is amazing – there is a strange moment in it about the first quarter to one third of the way into it. (my note).

Convection_Ra10.mpg (Warning 32 MB)This is a movie of the entropy in 2d convection with periodic side boundaris and isentropic top and bottom boundaries. The Rayleigh number in this calculation is 1.d10 and the prandtl number is 0.1, clearly in the turbulent regime. In this calculation the small scale structure cascades to the large scale “roll” as expected in 2d.

http://www.supersci.org/RecentResults.php

**

Fusion Chemistry – A Closer Look

The composition of the sun can be described in several ways. By modern estimates, the composition by mass is: 71% H, 27% He, and 2% other heavier elements. By number of atoms of a given type, the sun’s composition is: 91% H, 9% He, and 0.1% other heavier elements. Hydrogen can mean either H atoms or H₂ molecules and context is needed to make the meaning of the word clear.

In the sun’s core neither hydrogen molecules nor neutral hydrogen atoms with one proton in the nucleus and one orbital electron are present. The violent, hot environment of the sun’s center rips atoms apart into their constituent pieces: protons, electrons, and other bare atomic nuclei. Hydrogen in the sun’s core is ionized, a bare proton, represented by the symbol p⁺. It is these protons that fuse together with the release of energy. 

(etc.)

The scenario outlined above is called the proton-proton chain. It is the most important process for producing the sun’s energy, although it is not the only set of reactions that occur.

Other fusion reactions

At even higher temperatures inside the sun and other aging stars, other nuclei undergo fusion reactions. These reactions occur in layers, with the higher temperature layers closer to the center. Some examples are given in the table below.

(see chart and full explanation on the link below – amazing explanation of the Standard Solar Model)

http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/science/mod3_SunlightSolarHeat/FusionChemistry/index.html

**

 

Bits of stuff about nuclear fusion

It is actually the conversion that we want; the transfer of one type of work energy into the form of electricity, heat, power, light, energy, locomotion, speed and velocity generally, along with control of it that our systems are designed to do. The idea that a system to be viable must produce more energy than is consumed is a misleading concept at best. There is no greater energy in a hydro-electric system coming out than going in. There is, in fact, less energy converted into electrical power than the consummate energy of the water’s motion would be calculated to produce directly. There is a loss by the conversion being used at every stage of the process.

These systems we have for producing electricity (and other forms of power, such as gasoline to power vehicles and machinery), are literally transferring one type of energy into another. That is true for every type of “energy source” we are currently using, (by utilizing them in the current manner we are doing it.)

With ITER and at Livermore, their energy conversions are requiring mega-power going in and after their “conceptual” processing, the amount of power coming out is about enough to light a few lightbulbs and run a few toasters, and does so at a cost of several hundred billion (with a “b”) dollars over the life of the experimental phases, the startup capital building requirements and through the life of the operating usefulness. It compares with the $10 billion dollar plus steam kettle systems that we’ve designed called “nuclear power” as well which use uranium rods to heat water into steam for turning the turbines.

In nature, considering that we haven’t had to go to the sun and stir it even once to keep the fusion reactions occurring, at least not in any lifetimes found in science or mythical literature, there is something to be said for creating similar dynamic and robust systems which, in my opinion – are an asymmetrical equilibrium maintained that continuously feeds both the reactions and the physics-based attributes of the system making the reactions viable within the system. We don’t try to do that in our systems and process designs thus far.

As a result of our ways of approaching power “generation” which is simply to convert one potential or kinetic energy source into another (of electricity, for instance) with our fairly systemically symmetric, stable and forced system dynamics in a linear configuration, the power lost at each stage is tremendous. The actual system itself depletes some of those energy conversions rather than to help sustain the conversion by its basic design and concept.

( – cricketdiane, 06-27-11)

**

So, what if -

We design a dynamic fusion system based upon a mechanically asymmetric process.

That, the attempt is not made to convert through steam, fire, temperature changes or the kinetic energy of motion from water or air or steam.

That, the conversion be made more directly – since, only the stripped electrons at the molecular and atomic level are actually desirable or needed from the system.

And, those harnessing mechanisms be controlled and safely contained with all their possible by-products from the reaction. It isn’t safe to have neutrinos running around loose. The by-products must be contained within the system and harnessed as a possibility for managing them safely while gaining what possible work can be derived from them.

(Note, the word “mechanically” is used in the sense of physics – not in the sense of physical mechanical substrates within the system.

The list above, did not include geothermal power sources which are both actively engaged in generating power today and, it is safe to assume, will be used to generate electric power in the future. These sources are simply using a different initializing source for a temperature change to steam as a method of turning the turbines to generate electricity. In these systems, they are using the earth like a hot springs tap to engineer the steam desired. They are very effective, but not as well funded and pursued as other “energy sources.”

As I said, there are drawbacks to every one of the systems which is not included in this discussion. The idea that we need another option is fairly well grounded in reality and there are many good reasons for this.

When I first started looking at the options for fusion energy / electricity generation, I thought that the first line of options would include the radioactive decay from uranium and similar elements which, I discovered, had been tried with good results but very dangerous drawbacks. There was no possible control mechanism that could be adequately safe for those decay particles to be harnessed to gain the electrical “work” available in them. They are dangerous, unstable, not user friendly to human beings and human life, along with being unpredictable inside a very slim margin of error. They were in use for some lighthouses and other similar direct energy products including some uses for satellites and space program interstellar research missions’ onboard power needs. These sources rely on a more direct approach to harnessing the energy from these sources but are so dangerous as to make them impractical on any massive scale. It has been tried.

Meanwhile, our sun keeps on making fusion reactions a multitude of times per second across its entire surface and dimensionally through its gaseous structure, maybe to several earth’s deep or more without one bit of help from us and its initiation began in an ultra-cold, vacuum of space condition. When a lightning bolt strips through the air on our planet, it is neither in a high-pressure confined and contained environment nor in a high temperature and high pressure environment. Its entire system neither requires extreme conditions of pressure such as those used in our labs nor relies upon an intense high temperature environment to occur. Admittedly, lightning is a direct current system, however, it is fusing, altering, fissioning, and changing atoms as it goes along its path as well as impacting the surrounding air molecules in chain reactions as a result.

- ** -

So, on a scale of 1 to 10 – with 10 being the most efficient of the lot -

10 would have to go to the sun and other naturally occurring fusion and energy conversion systems.

and 1 or 2 would have to encompass where our designed systems are operating.

**-

And, in the meantime, energy needs are being fulfilled by fairly traditional sources of steam or falling water turning turbines to make electricity, or coal-fired and petroleum fired power plants doing it nearly the same way with nothing more than a different starting point fuel making fire to make steam to turn the turbines – and nuclear rods in nuclear power plants doing basically the same thing.

(from)

June 27, 2011

Obscurity Assured

- cricketdiane

Fusion cricketdiane notes

**

And this from the same post which is a quote from a CNN article about fusion recently -

“Washington is comfortable that this technology provides no opportunities “for nuclear proliferation or advancement of other country’s weapons capability,” said Dunne. The development of commercial fusion, he says, has no defense applications.”

(from)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/06/27/fusion/

**

Our engineers, scientists, business people and decision-makers have been passing up tangible choices that work, especially for the last 40 years. Based on profitability analyses, cost-to-benefit ratios, and probabilistic risk assessment scenarios – decisions have been made to exclude, refuse, reject, de-fund and deny funding to possible and viable solutions. That is true with every single area of engineering, every type of science, every product, architecture, civil engineering, construction choice, business and especially the energy industry.

I noticed this (below) yesterday in an article from the Union of Concerned Scientists among their suggestions to make nuclear power plants safer and it reminded me of things I had seen in engineering books about cost-to-benefit choices that are made constantly throughout the process. It is obvious that those kinds of choices are being made at every level and in every arena which at the same time is serving to exclude any number of better choices in materials, construction methods, science, research, avenues of research, and integrity of engineering as it is applied. It could have set aside numerous methods for fusion that could work, for instance, or served to steal funding from those avenues of research, and to have literally shelved those other options. It has certainly done this with geothermal, and hindered solar, wind and wave /current possibilities.

The NRC should increase the value it assigns to a human life in its cost-benefit analyses so the value is consistent with other government agencies.

The NRC should require plant owners to calculcate the risk of fuel damage in spent fuel pools as well as reactor cores in all safety analyses.

The NRC should not make decisions about reactor safety using probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) until it has corrected its flawed application of this tool.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/ucs-nuclear-safety-recommendations.html

Union of Concerned Scientists

**

I was looking at a bladeless turbine invented by Teslas earlier today, and I was thinking – what if these new materials we have today were used for it? Hmmm………

How many things would be like that?

And I noticed this the other day on France24 about CO2 capture used for piping into greenhouses by a company named Hortichuelas – for industrial tomato farms and such. That is pretty brilliant. They had a tank of CO2 captured from some other industry that was being fed into the greenhouse through pipes along next to the plants which made them grow super big and stronger than without it. Amazing.

It remains a possibility that things have already been created which at some point were unfunded and set aside. Those analyses that supported those choices at the time didn’t have the advantage of the manufacturing possibilities we have now, nor the processes and materials available today, along with higher costs now associated with some of the things they were using for comparison. It would be great to have another look at some of those things with a different mindset.

How many of the ways that are in use today have been protected from competition by any other source as well? How often have corners been cut to produce cheaper at the expense of safer? And, how much of that still must be tolerated today?

On my last post, I noted a discussion from wikipedia authors about cold fusion and the Pons and Fleischmann experiment results.

(found here – )

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/The_Wikipedia_article/Comments_on_edits/Pathological_science

What it means, is that through a sleight of hand by the science community – the entire avenue of research has been denied – but apparently there were some results worthy of consideration from their experiments.

So, what we have now are research groups following lines of massive projects for fusion with massive power going into their mechanisms to create that fusion potential, the promise that in another thirty years it will be available and massive funding wrapped up in them. There is also apparently some measure of disagreement between the chemistry fields and physics fields about atomic “stuff”. At some point the different understandings of scientific specialties are crossing over the same paths when it comes to atoms and molecular research, knowledge and funding as well.

The other thing is that, having found (as I noted in the last post) the fact universities are teaching even their psychology classes about cold fusion as an inherently delusional popular “myth” even while failing to present the actual evidence about it in its entirety, it occurs to me that it has hindered, shunned and prevented many other avenues of thought about fusion generally and about generating power from anything other than what is being used already.

***

Astrophysical reaction chains

The proton-proton chain dominates in stars the size of the Sun or smaller.

The CNO cycle dominates in stars heavier than the Sun.

The most important fusion process in nature is the one that powers stars. The net result is the fusion of four protons into one alpha particle, with the release of two positrons, two neutrinos (which changes two of the protons into neutrons), and energy, but several individual reactions are involved, depending on the mass of the star. For stars the size of the sun or smaller, the proton-proton chain dominates. In heavier stars, the CNO cycle is more important. Both types of processes are responsible for the creation of new elements as part of stellar nucleosynthesis.

At the temperatures and densities in stellar cores the rates of fusion reactions are notoriously slow. For example, at solar core temperature (T ≈ 15 MK) and density (160 g/cm³), the energy release rate is only 276 μW/cm³—about a quarter of the volumetric rate at which a resting human body generates heat.^[19] Thus, reproduction of stellar core conditions in a lab for nuclear fusion power production is completely impractical. Because nuclear reaction rates strongly depend on temperature (exp(−E/kT)), achieving reasonable energy production rates in terrestrial fusion reactors requires 10–100 times higher temperatures (compared to stellar interiors): T ≈ 0.1–1.0 GK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Important_reactions

The CNO cycle dominates in stars heavier than the Sun.

**

Slide Show of the Saltwater being turned into fire by the invention of a Florida man from 2007

A Florida man may have accidentally invented a machine that could solve the gasoline and energy crisis plaguing the U.S., WPBF News 25 reported.

http://www.wpbf.com/slideshow/news/13384010/detail.html

Read more: http://www.wpbf.com/slideshow/news/13384010/detail.html#ixzz1S90omzeK

Fla. Man Invents Machine To Turn Water Into Fire

POSTED: 1:22 pm EDT May 24, 2007
UPDATED: 2:53 pm EDT May 24, 2007

Kanzius said the flame created from his machine reaches a temperature of around 3,000 degrees Farenheit. He said a chemist told him that the immense heat created from the machine breaks down the hydrogen-oxygen bond in the water, igniting the hydrogen.

“You could take plain salt water out of the sea, put it in containers and produce a violent flame that could heat generators that make electricity, or provide other forms of energy,” Kanzius said.

(etc.)

Read more: http://www.wpbf.com/news/13383827/detail.html#ixzz1S91TSIjS

**

The Fusor – (and I thought neutrons can be captured and converted. I’ll have to look up that part)

The Farnsworth–Hirsch Fusor, or simply fusor, is an apparatus designed by Philo T. Farnsworth to create nuclear fusion. It has also been developed in various incarnations by researchers including Elmore, Tuck, and Watson, and more lately by George Miley and Robert W. Bussard. Unlike most controlled fusion systems, which slowly heat a magnetically confined plasma, the fusor injects “high temperature” ions directly into a reaction chamber, thereby avoiding a considerable amount of complexity. The approach is known as inertial electrostatic confinement.

Farnsworth’s original fusor designs were based on cylindrical arrangements of electrodes, like the original multipactors. Fuel was ionized and then fired from small accelerators through holes in the outer (physical) electrodes. Once through the hole they were accelerated towards the inner reaction area at high velocity. Electrostatic pressure from the positively charged electrodes would keep the fuel as a whole off the walls of the chamber, and impacts from new ions would keep the hottest plasma in the center. He referred to this as inertial electrostatic confinement, a term that continues to be used to this day. (etc.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

**

Also from that entry -

Main article: Neutron generator

Regardless of its possible use as an energy source, the fusor has already been demonstrated as a viable neutron source. Fluxes are not as high as can be obtained from nuclear reactor or particle accelerator sources, but are sufficient for many uses. Importantly, the neutron generator easily sits on a benchtop, and can be turned off at the flick of a switch. A commercial fusor was developed as a non-core business within DaimlerChrysler Aerospace – Space Infrastructure, Bremen between 1996 and early 2001.^[4] After the project was effectively ended, the former project manager established a company which is called NSD-Fusion [1].

Patents

• Bennett, W. H., U.S. Patent 3,120,475, February 1964. (Thermonuclear power)
• P.T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 3,258,402, June 1966 (Electric discharge — Nuclear interaction)
• P.T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 3,386,883. June 1968 (Method and apparatus)
• Hirsch, Robert, U.S. Patent 3,530,036. September 1970 (Apparatus)
• Hirsch, Robert, U.S. Patent 3,530,497. September 1970 (Generating apparatus — Hirsch/Meeks)
• Hirsch, Robert, U.S. Patent 3,533,910. October 1970 (Lithium-Ion source)
• Hirsch, Robert, U.S. Patent 3,655,508. April 1972 (Reduce plasma leakage)
• P.T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 3,664,920. May 1972 (Electrostatic containment)
• R.W. Bussard, “Method and apparatus for controlling charged particles”, U.S. Patent 4,826,646, May 1989 (Method and apparatus — Magnetic grid fields).
• R.W. Bussard, “Method and apparatus for creating and controlling nuclear fusion reactions”, U.S. Patent 5,160,695, November 1992 (Method and apparatus — Ion acoustic waves).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

From the “also see” resources list at the bottom of the page -

How a Small Vacuum System and a Bit of Basketweaving Will Get You a Working Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement Neutron Source

***

This was another design that had some merit but defunding made continued work with it nonexistent -

Migma was a proposed inertial electrostatic confinement fusion reactor designed by Bogdan Maglich in the early 1970s.^[1] Migma uses self-intersecting beams of ions from small particle accelerators to force the ions to fuse. It was an area of some research in the 1970s and early 1980s, but lack of funding precluded further development. (etc.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migma

More about the Migma – (from the same entry)

Two primary approaches have developed to attack the fusion energy problem. In the inertial confinement approach the fuel is quickly squeezed to extremely high densities, increasing the internal temperature in the process. There is no attempt to maintain these conditions for any period of time, the fuel explodes outward as soon as the force is released. The confinement time is on the order of nanoseconds, so the temperatures and density have to be very high in order to any appreciable amount of the fuel to undergo fusion. This approach has been successful in producing fusion reactions, but to date the devices that can provide the compression, typically lasers, require more energy than the reactions produce.

In the more widely studied magnetic confinement approach, the plasma, which is electrically charged, is confined with magnetic fields. The fuel is slowly heated until some of the fuel in the tail of the temperature distribution starts undergoing fusion. At the temperatures and densities that are possible using magnets the fusion process is fairly slow, so this approach requires long confinement times on the order of tens of seconds, or even minutes. Confining a gas at millions of degrees for this short of time scale has proven difficult, although modern experimental machines are approaching the conditions needed for net power production.

Migma fusion

The Migma approach avoided the problem of heating the mass of fuel to these temperatures by accelerating the ions directly in a particle accelerator. Accelerators capable of 100 keV are fairly simple to build, although in order to make up for various losses the energy provided is generally higher. Later Migma testbed devices used accelerators of about 1 MeV,^[2] fairly small compared to the large research reactors like Tevatron, which are a million times more powerful.

The original Migma concept used two small accelerators arranged in a collider arrangement, but this reaction proved to have fairly low cross-sections and most of the particles exited the experimental chamber without colliding. Maglich’s concept modified the arrangement to include a powerful magnetic confinement system in the target area; ions injected into the center would orbit around the center for some time, thereby greatly increasing the chance that any given particle would undergo a collision given a long enough confinement time. It was not obvious that this approach could work, as positively charged ions would all orbit the magnetic field in the same direction. However, Maglich showed that it was nevertheless possible to produce self-intersecting orbital paths in such a system, and he was able to point to experimental results from the intersecting beams at CERN to back up the proposal with real-world numbers.

Several Migma experimental devices were built in the 1970s; the original in 1972, Migma II in 1975, Migma III in 1978, and eventually culminating with the Migma IV in 1982. These devices were relatively small, only a few meters long along the accelerator beamline with a disk-shaped target chamber about 2 m in diameter and 1 m thick. This device achieved the record fusion triple product (density × energy-confinement-time × mean energy) of 4e¹⁴ keV sec cm⁻³ in 1982, a record that was not approached by a conventional tokamak until JET achieved 3e¹⁴ keV sec cm⁻³ in 1987.

Maglich has been attempting to secure funding for a follow-on version for some time now, unsuccessfully. According to an article in The Scientist, Maglich has been involved in an apparently acrimonious debate with the various funding agencies since the 1980s.

**

And, a little more about the Cold Fusion experiment of Pons and Fleischmann (1989) -

This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature using only a tabletop setup, and its related experiments. For the original use of the term ‘cold fusion’, see Muon-catalyzed fusion. For all other definitions, see Cold fusion (disambiguation).

Diagram of an open type calorimeter used at the New Hydrogen Energy Institute in Japan

Cold fusion refers to a proposed nuclear fusion process offered to explain a group of disputed experimental results first reported by electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. Proponents may prefer “Low Energy Nuclear Reaction” (LENR) or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reaction (CANR)^[1] to avoid the negative connotations associated with the original name.^[2][3] The field originates with reports of an experiment by Martin Fleischmann, then one of the world’s leading electrochemists,^[4] and Stanley Pons in March 1989 where they reported anomalous heat production (“excess heat”) of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.^[5] The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.^[6]

Hopes fell when replication failures were weighed in view of several reasons cold fusion is not likely to occur, the discovery of possible sources of experimental error, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[8]

In 1989, the majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive enough to start a special program, but was “sympathetic toward modest support” for experiments “within the present funding system.” A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first.^[11] A small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion,^[9][12] claiming to replicate Fleischmann and Pons’ results including nuclear reaction byproducts.^[13][14]

(etc.)

In 1988, Fleischmann and Pons applied to the United States Department of Energy for funding towards a larger series of experiments. Up to this point they had been funding their experiments using a small device built with $100,000 out-of-pocket.^[23] The grant proposal was turned over for peer review, and one of the reviewers was Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University.^[23] Jones had worked for some time on muon-catalyzed fusion, a known method of inducing nuclear fusion without high temperatures, and had written an article on the topic entitled “Cold nuclear fusion” that had been published in Scientific American in July 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

**

Materials Science Supplier of Experimental and New Materials -

http://www.goodfellow.com/

and

Muon-catalyzed fusion (from wikipedia entry)

Muon-catalyzed fusion (μCF) is a process allowing nuclear fusion to take place at temperatures significantly lower than the temperatures required for thermonuclear fusion, even at room temperature or lower. Although it can be produced reliably with the right equipment and has been much studied, it is believed that the poor energy balance will prevent it from ever becoming a practical power source. However, if muons (μ−
) could be produced more efficiently, or if they could be used as catalysts more efficiently, the energy balance might improve enough for muon-catalyzed fusion to become a practical power source.

Muons are unstable subatomic particles. They are similar to electrons, but are about 207 times more massive. If a muon replaces one of the electrons in a hydrogen molecule, the nuclei are consequently drawn 207 times closer together than they would be in a normal molecule. When the nuclei are this close together, the probability of nuclear fusion is greatly enhanced, to the point where a significant number of fusion events can happen at room temperature. Unfortunately, it is difficult to create large numbers of muons efficiently; moreover, the existence of processes that remove muons from the catalytic cycle mean that each muon can only catalyze a few hundred nuclear fusion reactions before it decays away. These two factors limit muon-catalyzed fusion to a laboratory curiosity, although there is some speculation that an efficient muon source could someday lead to a useful room-temperature fusion reactor.

(etc.)

Except for refinements such as these, little has changed in the half-century since Jackson’s assessment of the feasibility of muon-catalyzed fusion, other than Vesman’s prediction of the hyperfine resonant formation of the muonic (d-μ-t)⁺ molecular ion, which was subsequently experimentally observed. This helped spark renewed interest in the whole field of muon-catalyzed fusion, which remains an active area of research worldwide among those who continue to be fascinated and intrigued (and frustrated) by this tantalizing approach to controllable nuclear fusion that almost works. Clearly, as Jackson observed in his 1957 paper, muon-catalyzed fusion is “unlikely” to provide “useful power production… unless an energetically cheaper way of producing μ⁻-mesons^{[note 2]} can be found.”^[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

**

Department of Energy Tools and Resources -

http://www.osti.gov/energyfiles/

***

 

What a Story ( but its a science thing, not a soap opera thing )

So, I was looking up this -

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11Prager.html

How Seawater Can Power the World

NYTimes

By STEWART C. PRAGER

Published: July 10, 2011

Harnessing nuclear fusion, the energy that powers the sun and the stars, has been a goal of physicists worldwide since the 1950s. It is essentially inexhaustible and it can be created using hydrogen isotopes — chemical cousins of hydrogen, like deuterium — that can readily be extracted from seawater.

Fusion energy is created by fusing two atomic nuclei, in the process converting mass to energy, which appears as heat. The heat, as in conventional nuclear fission reactors, turns water into steam, which drives turbines to generate electricity, or is used to produce fuels for transportation or other uses.

(etc.)

***

Which I had seen the other day, and as I was looking for it – found these other couple things of interest -

on a google search trying to find the article – I found this which is from a psych class at a university -

Cold fusion and scientific belief

www.uic.edu/classes/psych/psych242/…/NYT,%20Cold%20fusion.doc

File Format: Microsoft Word – Quick View
“Cold fusion” held the promise of endless, cheap energy. It is a good example of how stubborn theories can be. The New York Times. March 23, 1999, Tuesday …

**

Which means there are psych classes being taught and information in psych textbooks which approaches the scientific research about fusion to be inappropriate and off in left field somewhere. That is what they are teaching.

And, that the belief in the possibility of fusion to be incoherent with any basis of reality.

Then, I found this (also during that google search for the article in the NYTimes linked above)

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/The_Wikipedia_article/Comments_on_edits/Pathological_science

Cold fusion/The Wikipedia article/Comments on edits/Pathological science

From Wikiversity

< Cold fusion | The Wikipedia article | Comments on edits

Jump to: navigation, search

At present, the article says:

By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[8] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[9]

and, deeper in the article,

In May 1989, the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion, including many reports of experiments that failed to produce evidence of cold fusion. At the end of the session, eight of the nine leading speakers stated that they considered the initial Fleischmann and Pons claim dead with the ninth, Johann Rafelski, abstaining.[8] Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of “the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann” which was met with applause. Douglas R. O. Morrison, a physicist representing CERN, was the first to call the episode an example of pathological science.[8][39]

• [8]: Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion, New York Times, May 3, 1989, report of APS meeting.
• [9]: U.S. Will Give Cold Fusion Second Look, After 15 Years, New York Times, March 25, 2004, report of coming 2004 DoE review.
• [39]: A report from the American Physical Society, Spring Meeting, 1-2 May 1989, Baltimore, MD, Special Session on cold fusion unpublished report, email from Emmett Black to Vincent Cate. Appears to be an individual’s notes on the meeting.

Notes

The statement about “most scientists” is sourced by [8], an article on the APS meeting, Physicists seemed generally persuaded as the sessions ended that assertions of “cold fusion” were based on nothing more than experimental errors by scientists in Utah.

This was (1) not late 1989, and (2) was not “most scientists” but simply “most physicists,” and not even most physicists, it would be most of those who attended the meeting. However, this source does cite Morrison as mentioning “pathological science.” That term has a recognized usage, and the characteristics couldn’t possibly be applied at that early date.

Source 9 does not mention “pathological science,” but is a report of the coming 2004 U.S. DoE review. It begins with: Cold fusion, briefly hailed as the silver-bullet solution to the world’s energy problems and since discarded to the same bin of quackery as paranormal phenomena and perpetual motion machines, will soon get a new hearing from Washington. This is a report in a reliable source, all right, but is fluff, general passing hyperbole, passive, with no attribution of who did the discarding.

Source 32 is not a reliable source, it appears to be a single individual’s private account of the meeting, attending with a group from General Electric Research, and does not mention “pathological science” either. It contains the following information about Morrison:

Jones’ data were challenged by Morrison of CERN, who said Jones had overstated the statistical significance of his data. (This was about Jones’ independent report, not the Pons-Fleischmann effect. Remarkably, the observer considers it possible that there is some real effect, so this report contradicts what the Times reporter stated.)

A second Cold Fusion seminar was scheduled for the APS meeting on Tuesday 2 May 1989, at 7:30pm. The Tuesday session was to begin with “a general review with emphasis on European work by D.Q.O. Morrison, CERN.” Unfortunately none of our representatives were able to attend; also, due to the rapid decrease in interest in last night’s seminar after the Cal Tech talk, we did not believe the second seminar would generate much interest.

There is no mention of any severe criticism by Morrison, other than of the Jones work.

How did it come to be that these statements so poorly support the text? Why is a newspaper report of a conference proceeding given great weight, when conference proceedings themselves are not considered reliable source?

Looking back, 02:05, 30 December 2009 has the first text, but not the second. It has, instead, CERN physicist Douglas R. O. Morrison said that “essentially all” attempts in Western Europe had failed.[29] [29} is the 1989 NYT article, which does support the "pathological science" claim about Morrison as well.

"Most physicists in attendance," so to speak, has become, in the article, "most scientists." Cold fusion is a turn war between chemists and physicists, that's covered in reliable source.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/The_Wikipedia_article/Comments_on_edits/Pathological_science"

Category: Cold fusion

***

And, I thought - Hmmmm............

What is wrong with this picture?

Or, rather is anything right about this picture and why is it like that?

So, I went here - (and found these couple nifty things)

But, then I already knew where to look -

http://management.energy.gov/program_support/library.htm

Which is the Department of Energy Library (and there is another page I want to find that I've seen before with a vast nifty database of projects in it - which I'll add in a little bit after I find it.)

And, although it has several great areas to see on the above page - I've picked this one to list here for now -

Library Resources 
The Energy Library provides the Department and the Public with links to important energy related and general reference subjects and their resources on the Internet.

And, I had already been looking at the list of Tesla patents and another quick page from the other day - and read through a Tesla turbine design which isn't being used in the manner for which its design was created -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tesla_patents

Tesla Turbine from wikipedia entry

And on the page about it, the text starts out by saying this -

The Tesla turbine is a bladeless centripetal flow turbinepatented by Nikola Tesla in 1913. It is referred to as a bladeless turbine because it uses the boundary layer effect and not a fluid impinging upon the blades as in a conventional turbine. The Tesla turbine is also known as the boundary layer turbine, cohesion-type turbine, and Prandtl layer turbine (after Ludwig Prandtl). Bioengineering researchers have referred to it as a multiple disk centrifugal pump.^[1][2] One of Tesla’s desires for implementation of this turbine was for geothermal power, which was described in “Our Future Motive Power“.^[3]

(from)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine

And, this is the other one I was considering (from the other day) -

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/02/15_heatelectricity.shtml

Researchers convert heat to electricity using organic molecules, could lead to new energy source

By Sarah Yang, Media Relations | 15 February 2007

BERKELEY – Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have successfully generated electricity from heat by trapping organic molecules between metal nanoparticles, an achievement that could pave the way toward the development of a new source for energy.

The discovery, described in a study published today (Thursday, Feb. 15) in Science Express, an electronic publication of the journal Science, is a milestone in the quest for efficient ways to directly convert heat into electricity. Currently, the dominant method of power generation involves burning fossil fuels to create heat, often in the form of steam, to spin a turbine that, in turn, drives a generator that produces electricity. (etc.)

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/02/15_heatelectricity.shtml

Which is actually a discovery published from 2007 and it is now 2011, in fact, well into 2011. But, this hasn’t been producing electricity of any significant measure for mankind either – now is still a time that our scientists, engineers, politicians, academics and others claim we are still 25 – 30 years away from any other source providing electricity for our nation and for other nations of the world.

That just can’t be right. They were saying the same thing 30 years ago, even in the 1950′s that was the claim. Always, it is thirty years away. Always costing money to study it some more today. Always, without commercial applications and backing in the marketplace.

Now, why exactly is that being tolerated?

Hmmm………….

- cricketdiane

***

I also looked up this one – which may or may not be accessible. I haven’t checked it yet -

UC Berkeley Library Data Lab

sunsite.berkeley.edu/wikis/datalab/

But even if it is not – the CERN labs information about fusion, plasma, discoveries and difficulties is available and easy to use. Great reading too – and some of it has pictures and diagrams and charts of the things they are discussing in the various papers.

***

And then, I think of my own notes about fusion, and about the USA Today article about “Turning your Hobby Into a Profitable Small Business” that I found a couple days ago and it is still open on my tab bar – I don’t think they mean nuclear fusion, though. It looks like they are really talking about women making cupcakes or something . . .

http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/2011-07-10-highly-profitable-hobbies_n.htm?kjnd=utmB5F5DgADCXoKVAfHasdRL1p6MuoX0ixvPWCue1Z/OJnYTm1i7ho3e4vAcz0c9-91ea0b28-0da5-49aa-8d26-92a0cefecd41_RHYQkYgVzsCUxpaEJoU4pOjST90/sd894X%2BpacmB2hvlThgHc6Fg42pgneih8f0y&dlvrit=206567

Besides which – in Georgia (and probably in America generally) – any woman who wants to do something besides making cupcakes as a living would have to be psychologically troubled in their estimation and certainly, abnormal. What a shame.

But, we have enough cupcake makers, fragrances, cosmetics, panty and bra designs being made as businesses. And it doesn’t interest me to study those things, despite the fact that I can do some of them and have designed some of those kinds of things. I think it is easy to resent being forced into only those kinds of things because I am a woman and treated to the state’s further victimization of me if I happen to choose something else. And, I don’t like that.

So, regardless of the outcome -

And, having had enough of experiencing the same crap from it as most other people who have sought to educate themselves in America and participate in some aspect of it – here are some of the things I’ve discovered about nuclear fusion which happens to interest me a great deal more than making a hotdog stand, a damn cupcake business or designing women’s panties -

DOE: Energy Science and Technology Virtual Library

www.osti.gov/energyfiles/ – CachedSimilar

You +1′d this publicly. Undo

Collections of scientific and technical information from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with a distributed searching capability.

(Note – this was the page that I was talking about earlier in this post with the most wonderful archives of information from the DOE and it is really easy to figure out and use it – cricketdiane)

I do want to say, about the first article mentioned from the NY Times about fusion written by Stewart Prager, that it seems a loss to consider nuclear fusion as a way to heat water into steam, although that is probably the manner in which academics and maybe even commercial participants want to consider it. That seems like something that could more easily be accomplished even right this minute using geothermal sources, if that is really the only thing that they are going to do with it. The harnessing of the atomic knowledge we have as no more than a way to make steam in order to move turbines really misses the point. Its kind of like using nuclear fission based power plants to turn water into steam in Japan, (such as Fukushima) in a land which sits on enough geothermal energy sources to outpower damn near anywhere else on the planet. It makes that use of nuclear power with all its inherent drawbacks and dangers into nothing more than an extremely expensive joke on mankind (and at the expense of generations now in the wake of that radiation damage.) There is no sense in it.

However, the chances are that Mr. Prager understands the use of nuclear fusion will be similar to that of fission systems now in place where the steam will be generated to move turbines from the heat that is created from the atomic level processes. There is something so stuck about that thinking, but there it is – and he is probably right about that.

I will never understand why our nation has so devised its power scheme to unfavorably consider anything beyond the scheme currently in place and to allow disinformation, out and out lies and propaganda, purposeful intentional perception management strategies and other crass, inappropriate techniques to dissuade the public, the political decision-makers and businesses from using anything else either. Where there may have been some advantage in having done that at one time (during the last thirty years) – it is far from our advantage or the advantage of businesses engaged in the energy sector to do that today. Every other nation is throwing tons of money at this problem and seeking other solutions to it that work. We have nothing to gain by sticking with the same old designs than to be left in the dust of every other country on this earth at the point they reach that destination and we do not.

As much as I, too, agree with sticking with what works – not when doing that takes away our competitive advantage and leaves us with troubled systems for our national energy needs as everyone else in the world thrives, progresses and long before seeing the sum total of their efforts for a viable energy system from it, benefits – even as we do not.

We are indeed a global world. Yet, the costs of our energy system as it stands are born by us, not the world. And, the degradation of that system even as we need greater power from it, is not a cost that will be born by the world, but rather by us individually and collectively. Our nation needs every new source of generating energy that we do have, can have and strangely enough, will need to have for the coming centuries. And, sadly, our business community, (and our government) rarely considers what we will need across coming centuries. Certainly Enron was a prime example of that short-sightedness, along with a multitude of others from defunding projects which could have yielded to commercial investors not backing new technological advances. It is all based in short-term gains and short-sighted opinions.

- cricketdiane

***

Cupcakes,

Yeah, right.

**

From one of my September 2009 posts -

(A bit from the GAO about our national infrastructure offered May 8, 2008 to House Committee, US Congress) -

The economic well-being of the United States is dependent on the reliability, safety, and security of its physical infrastructure. The nation’s infrastructure is vast and affects the daily lives of virtually all Americans. In total, there are about 4 million miles of roads, 117,000 miles of rail, 600,000 bridges, 79,000 dams, 26,000 miles of commercially navigable waterways, 11,000 miles of transit lines, 500 train stations, 300 ports, 19,000 airports,5 55,000 community drinking water systems, and 30,000 wastewater treatment and collection facilities. Collectively, this infrastructure connects communities, facilitates trade, provides clean drinking water, and protects public health, among other things.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08763t.pdf

my note -

It is missing the natural gas, petroleum facilities and pipelines, the electricity generating facilities – hydroelectric, coal-fired and nuclear / atomic plants, and national parks, preserves and lands. (additionally, mines and mining operations, air routes, drilling operations, shipping operations, and taxpayer funded research facilities and operations.)

(from)

September 29, 2009

US infrastructure crumbling while money continues to flow into the Middle East and around the world to build infrastructure for our enemies – air quality, pollution, global warming, US infrastructure, Afghanistan and Iraq –

***

How Seawater Can Power the World – NYTimes.com

How Seawater Can Power the World – NYTimes.com.

**

Tesla turbine – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Describes a bladeless turbine designed by Nikola Tesla.

**

List of Tesla Patents -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tesla_patents

**

LRB · Donald MacKenzie · How to Make Money in Microseconds.

Explains the algorithms used in the stock market for trades that most people don’t know are running in the background for every exchange.

**

UCS Nuclear Power Safety & Security Recommendations | Union of Concerned Scientists.

Lists guidelines for nuclear power to be operated more safely given the recent Fukushima meltdown and release of radioactive materials that has occurred. (from the Union of Concerned Scientists).

**

Precision Linear Actuators for Precision Motion Control: Ceramic and Ball Screw Types.

Just really nifty stuff.

**

A new way to build nanostructures | R&D Mag.

Also very nifty.

**

Anton Paar Finds Continued SAXsess | R&D Mag.

X-ray scattering is one of the most effective methods for determining the structure of materials on the nanoscale. Scattering is favored because it can reveal both the structure and chemical composition of solids or liquids without destroying the sample. Small-angle x-ray scattering (SAXS) is a widely used variation of this technique that fires a monochromatic beam through a sample. Most of the x-rays pass through the sample, but some x-rays scatter as they encounter inhomogeneities in the material.

For porous materials, SAXS is especially useful because x-rays are scattered as they pass through interfaces of domains within the sample. These domains can be solid, another type of liquid, or even a gas within the sample.

(etc.)

Very nifty – but I suppose it can’t be taken out to a building, a bridge, a dam or a levee to check the integrity of those materials. But, it sure needs to – or something that is based on the same principles. (my note)

- cricketdiane

**

Superior Technical Ceramics Corp. for Ceramic Parts.

Absolutely stunning stuff.

**

About a teacher who taught Einstein -

Aurel Stodola From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aurel StodolaAurel StodolaBorn 10 May 18591859-05-10Liptovský Mikuláš, Austro-Hungarian EmpireDied 25 December 19421942-12-25 aged 83Zürich, SwitzerlandResting place Liptovský Mikuláš, SlovakiaResidence Slovakia, Switzerland

Known for technical thermodynamics gas turbine-powered electric generator

Awards Honorary degree of Leibniz University Hannover Grashof medal of Verein Deutscher Ingenieure Honorary degree of German Technical University of Brno Honorary degree of Charles University of Prague James Watt International MedalAurel Boleslav Stodola 10 May 1859 Liptovský Mikuláš, Austro-Hungarian Empire – 25 December 1942 Zürich, Switzerland

Aurel Stodola was an engineer, physicist, and inventor. He was an ethnic Slovak. He was a pioneer in the area of technical thermodynamics and its applications and published his book Die Dampfturbine the steam turbine in 1903. In addition to the thermodynamic issues involved in turbine design the book discussed aspects of fluid flow, vibration, stress analysis of plates, shells and rotating discs and stress concentrations at holes and fillets.[1]

Stodola was a professor of mechanical engineering at the Swiss Polytechnical Institute now ETH in Zurich. One of his students was Albert Einstein.[2] In 1892, Stodola founded the Laboratory for Energy Conversion.

Steam and Gas TurbinesStodola’s book Steam and Gas Turbines [3] was cited by Soviet rocket scientist Fridrikh Tsander in the 1920s. Published in English in 1927 and reprinted many times up to 1945, it was a basic reference for engineers working on the first generation of jet propulsion engines in the United States.[4]

Stodola worked closely with industries on the development of the first practical gas turbines, in particular Brown, Boveri & Cie, who built the first gas turbine-powered electric generator in 1939.[5]

Medical equipmentIn 1915-1916 Stodola collaborated with Ferdinand Sauerbruch a German surgeon to develop an advanced mechanically driven prosthetic arm. This collaboration marked one of the first documented examples of a surgeon and engineer merging efforts. Sauerbruch said, “Henceforth, surgeon, physiologist, and technician prosthetist/engineer will have to work together.”[6]

Honors 1905 – Honorary degree of Leibniz University Hannover 1908 – Grashof medal of Verein Deutscher Ingenieure Honorary degree of German Technical University of Brno 1929 – Honorary degree of Charles University of Prague 1941 – James Watt International MedalCorresponding member of French Academy of Sciences.

See also Ellipse Law

References 1. ^ Rao, S., “Mechanical Vibrations”, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, England, Third Edition, 1995. 2. ^ “Osobnosti Pýcha inžinierstva celého sveta Aurel Stodola: Moje city nikdy neochabli pre môj národ”. civil.gov.sk. http://www.civil.gov.sk/archiv/casopis/2001/1426mipr.html. Retrieved 23 September 2009 In Slovak. 3. ^ Aurel Stodola 1945, Steam and gas turbines, New York: P. Smith, OL18625767M 4. ^ Dawson, V.P., Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology. NASA SP-4306, 1991. 5. ^ Early Gas Turbine History at web.mit.edu 6. ^ Childress, D.S., Development of rehabilitation engineering over the years: As I see it. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 2002, 396, Supplement:1-10.[edit] External links Virtual Exhibbition from the Library of the ETH Zürich German Fund of A. StodolaPersondataName Stodola, AurelAlternative names Short description Date of birth 10 May 1859Place of birth Liptovský Mikuláš, SlovakiaDate of death 25 December 1942Place of death Zürich, Switzerland

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurel_Stodola”Categories: 1859 births | 1942 deaths | Slovak inventors | Slovak engineers | Hungarian engineers | Hungarian scientists | Austro-Hungarian scientists | ETH Zurich faculty | People from Liptovský Mikuláš | Turbines | Jet engines | Power engineering

via Aurel Stodola – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

**

Relativistic-runaway-electron avalanche – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relativistic-runaway-electron avalanche – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This one is very important where fusion possibilities are concerned. Well worth studying this page at wikipedia.

**

Carbon nanotubes offer new way to produce electricity

Carbon nanotubes offer new way to produce electricity.

This is the best one.

**

Breakthrough in Converting Heat Waste to Electricity : Northwestern University Newscenter

Breakthrough in Converting Heat Waste to Electricity : Northwestern University Newscenter.

“It has been known for 100 years that semiconductors have this property that can harness electricity,” said Mercouri Kanatzidis, the Charles E. and Emma H. Morrison Professor of Chemistry in The Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. “To make this an efficient process, all you need is the right material, and we have found a recipe or system to make this material.”

Well worth reading – my note.

**

Directory:Thermal Electric – PESWiki.

Absolutely Amazing.

**

Heat to electricity to heat to … « Texas A&M Engineering Works

Heat to electricity to heat to … « Texas A&M Engineering Works.

**

Silicon Nanowires Turn Heat to Electricity – IEEE Spectrum

Silicon Nanowires Turn Heat to Electricity – IEEE Spectrum.

**

02.15.2007 – Researchers convert heat to electricity using organic molecules, could lead to new energy source

02.15.2007 – Researchers convert heat to electricity using organic molecules, could lead to new energy source.

**

Generating ‘green’ electricity: Waste heat converted to electricity using new alloy

Generating ‘green’ electricity: Waste heat converted to electricity using new alloy.

**

A Sound Way To Turn Heat Into Electricity

A Sound Way To Turn Heat Into Electricity.

&**

Turning heat to electricity – MIT News Office

Turning heat to electricity – MIT News Office.

**

Quantum Ferromagnet Using a Nine Ion Crystal Observed by Researchers

Quantum Ferromagnet Using a Nine Ion Crystal Observed by Researchers.

**

A brief and concise explanation of how the Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion experimental results came to be called quack science despite evidence to the contrary – (with sources) - 

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/The_Wikipedia_article/Comments_on_edits/Pathological_science

Source 9 does not mention “pathological science,” but is a report of the coming 2004 U.S. DoE review. It begins with: Cold fusion, briefly hailed as the silver-bullet solution to the world’s energy problems and since discarded to the same bin of quackery as paranormal phenomena and perpetual motion machines, will soon get a new hearing from Washington. This is a report in a reliable source, all right, but is fluff, general passing hyperbole, passive, with no attribution of who did the discarding.

Source 32 is not a reliable source, it appears to be a single individual’s private account of the meeting, attending with a group from General Electric Research, and does not mention “pathological science” either. It contains the following information about Morrison:

(etc.)

**

Lightwave electronics at sharp metal tips

Lightwave electronics at sharp metal tips.

**

Biography James Watt

Biography James Watt.

Amazing. (my note)

**

Patent analysis and product survey on use of nanomaterials in lithium-ion batteries

Patent analysis and product survey on use of nanomaterials in lithium-ion batteries.

Amazing – with a list toward the bottom of the article which describes the patents. Absolutely brilliant.

**

List of Tesla Patents -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tesla_patents

**

A Fusion Thruster for Space Travel – IEEE Spectrum

A Fusion Thruster for Space Travel – IEEE Spectrum.

This is AMAZING – although noted that it is ten years from being onboard – it is already at a very useful state of design.

Absolutely worth taking a look and reading through the explanation.

Truly amazing work.

Great design – very workable concept.

- cricketdiane

**

More fusion notes. Glad to have found it.

**

Evidence of a new phase in liquid hydrogen

February 25, 2010 By Miranda Marquit

http://www.physorg.com/news186310440.html

One of the most significant things Tamblyn and Bonev discovered through their simulations, from an astrophysics standpoint, is that equations describing the properties of hydrogen might need to be updated. “This should change the modeling going forward,” Tamblyn insists. “What we found in the liquid suggests what the solid might look like, and that can help determine some of its thermal and electronic properties.”

After running the simulations, Tamblyn and Bonev then had to analyze them. “We discovered an ordering in the liquid that accounts for some of the interesting characteristics of hydrogen, such as the fact that under certain conditions, liquid hydrogen is more dense than the solid. We also found that highly ordered packing explains properties related to dissociation that were previously not well understood.”

(etc.)

Information on the simulation efforts, as well as results and conclusions, are presented in Physical Review Letters: “Structure and Phase Boundaries of Compressed Liquid Hydrogen.”

**

Scientists confirms liquid-liquid phase transition in silicon Mar 16, 2009 |

AND

**

Therefore, we are all agreed that new ways of developing and harnessing energy resources are desirable and much needed. The idea that the concept of fusion promises viable solutions to these energy needs has been around for a long, long time. The first such candidate for inclusion in this article is Sergei -

I did a google search right quick rather than trying to find anything in my documents which takes forever -

using the search terms -

sergei 1827 engineering fusion

Very interesting results – but especially this one -

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.riam.kyushu-u.ac.jp/public/publish/mokuroku05.pdf&ei=9FcJTratJMWz0AHFwZFl&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC0Q7gEwAjgU&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsergei%2B1827%2Bengineering%2Bfusion%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D580%26prmd%3Divns

That is the google translation page to see it in English – it is a 2005 paper.

**

And this one – also from those search results -

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58342978/52/Piotr-Leonidovich-Kapitza-1894%E2%80%931984

A quote from the text linked above -

By early August Kapitza, at Rutherford’s suggestion, was studying how the energy of the alpha particle falls off at the end of its range. This project was brought to a successful conclusion with amazing rapidity. (etc.)

And this one -

He had to convince the authorities that his work lay primarily in pure rather than applied physics and that he could do nothing useful unless he had equipment and other facilities comparable with those he had enjoyed in Cambridge. Negotiations were begun to bring him what he required.

So Kapitza settled down to research again and within a year made his greatest discovery, the superfluidity of liquid helium. However, he lacked the freedom he had enjoyed in Cambridge. From the mid 1930s Soviet scientists found themselves increasingly cut off from their colleagues in other countries.

( .  . . )

Although he was no longer head of the Institute of Physical Problems, Kapitza retained his position and salary as a full academician and went to live at his country house at Nikolina Gora, where he managed to carry on scientific work while virtually under house arrest. Most of his effort went into building up a laboratory in various outhouses where, aided by his sons, particularly Sergei, he could continue experimental work, albeit only on relatively unexciting projects. While atomic physics elsewhere was moving rapidly ahead using particle accelerators and other new equipment, he was unable to contribute to this. Even after he had been reinstated in 1954 and could return to Moscow,he was still without  the facilities he needed for the kind of experimental work at which he excelled. Nevertheless, he began to think about the possibility of developing a defence against atomic bombs using extremely powerful microwave emissions. Later he transferred his attention to the problem of generating energy through nuclear fusion.

(from)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58342978/52/Piotr-Leonidovich-Kapitza-1894%E2%80%931984

Also – this note from the article above – (about who Sergei is – one of two children born to Piotr and his wife, Anna) -

Two children were born in their Cambridge period: in 1928 Sergei, who became a distinguished physicist and successful popularizer of science for Soviet television, and three years later Andrei, who became a well-known Antarctic explorer and geographer.

**

There’s more.

From the other linked document -

http://www.riam.kyushu-u.ac.jp/public/publish/mokuroku05.pdf

(for which there is a google translated document link above the article about Piotr Kapitza,)

Liquid Helium Research from above (my note – and check out the equations he used)

To describe the contributions made by Piotr Kapitza in physics as it pertains to this discussion of fusion -

(from a biographical sketch about him online)

In 1934 he returned to Moscow where he organized the Institute for Physical Problems at which he continued his research on strong magnetic fields, low temperature physics and cryogenics.

In 1939 he developed a new method for liquefaction of air with a lowpressure cycle using a special high-efficiency expansion turbine. In low temperature physics, Kapitsa began a series of experiments to study the properties of liquid helium that led to discovery of the superfluidity of helium in 1937 and in a series of papers investigated this new state of matter.

During the World War II Kapitsa was engaged in applied research on the production and use of oxygen that was produced using his low pressure expansion turbines, and organized and headed the Department of Oxygen Industry attached to the USSR Council of Ministers. Late in the 1940′s Kapitsa turned his attention to a totally new range of physical problems.

He invented high power microwave generators – planotron and nigotron (1950- 1955) and discovered a new kind of continuous high pressure plasma discharge with electron temperatures over a million K. Kapitsa is director of the Institute for Physical Problems.

Since 1957 he is a member of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was one of the founders of the Moscow Physico-Technical Institute (MFTI), and is now head of the department of low temperature physics and cryogenics of MFTI and chairman of the Coordination Council of this teaching Institute. He is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics and member of the Soviet National Committee of the Pugwash movement of scientists for peace and disarmament.

http://kapitsa.nbaoh.com/1.htm

**

**

And this -

(from the CERN materials found on this page link below it)

HEAVY ION PROGRAM AT BNL: AGS, RHIC*
D.S. Barton

AGS Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory
Associated Universities, Inc.
Upton, New York 11973

http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/p87/PDF/PAC1987_0804.PDF

(from the CERN materials found on this page – despite it being an early document among them)

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/112546

****

Oh yes, and do be sure and read this -

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/FEC2008/ov_4-2.pdf

which explains a lot of it – in about the most current understanding of it with very clear explanations that are easy to follow -

*&*

And from this page -pg 25 of the document

http://www.riam.kyushu-u.ac.jp/public/publish/mokuroku05.pdf

極限構造材料
Extreme-Circumstances StructuraI Materials
教授 吉田 直亮，助教授 渡邉 英雄，助手 岩切 宏友
Professor Naoaki Yoshida, Associate Professor Hideo Watanabe,
Research Associate Hirotomo lwakiri

Xu, Qiu, N. Yoshida, T. Yoshiie : Dynamic Simulation of Multiplier Effects of
Helium Plasma and Neutron Irradiation on Microstructural Evolution in
Tungsten, Materials Transactions, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp.1255-1260, 2005.

Nishijima, D., H. Iwakiri, K. Amano, M.Y. Ye, N. Ohno, K. Tokunaga, N. Yoshida,
S. Takamura : Suppression of blister formation and deuterium retention on
tungsten surface due to mechanical polishing and helium pre-exposure, Nuclear
Fusion 45, pp. 669-674, 2005.

From the other linked document -

http://www.riam.kyushu-u.ac.jp/public/publish/mokuroku05.pdf

(for which there is a google translated document link above the article about Piotr Kapitza,)

page 22 – along with some of the non-linear dynamic system materials

高エネルギープラズマ
High Energy Plasma Physics
教授 伊藤 早苗，助教授 矢木 雅敏
Professor Sanae-I. Itoh, Associate Professor Masatoshi Yagi
Zonal flows in plasma –a review,
Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion Vol.47, No.5 (2005), R35-R161,
P. H. Diamond, S.-I. Itoh, K. Itoh and T. S. Hahm

Two decades of plasma physics – Turbulence and structure formation – (in
Japanese)
Parity Vol.20, No.11 (2005) 36-38
K. Itoh and S.-I. Itoh
Progress of the theory of zonal flow (in Japanese)
J. Plasma and Fusion Research Vol.81 No.12 (2005) 972-977
K. Itoh and S.-I. Itoh

Very interesting results – but especially this one -

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.riam.kyushu-u.ac.jp/public/publish/mokuroku05.pdf&ei=9FcJTratJMWz0AHFwZFl&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC0Q7gEwAjgU&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsergei%2B1827%2Bengineering%2Bfusion%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D580%26prmd%3Divns

That is the google translation page to see it in English – it is a 2005 paper.

(from the “obscurity assured” post I made on 6-27-11)

**

Japan nano-tech team creates palladium-like alloy: report -  Latest news around the world and developments close to home – MSN Philippines News

Japan nano-tech team creates palladium-like alloy: report –  Latest news around the world and developments close to home – MSN Philippines News.

from Agence France-Presse, 12-30-10

using rhodium-silver nanoparticles with alcohol stabilization – wowsa. and it works . . .

Amazing.

**

http://www.newelectronics.co.uk/electronics-news/cern-unveils-open-hardware-initiative/35209/

CERN unveils Open Hardware initiative

The CERN OHL was created to govern the use, copying, modification and distribution of hardware design documentation and the manufacture and distribution of products. Hardware design documentation includes schematic diagrams, designs, circuit or circuit board layouts, mechanical drawings, flow charts and descriptive texts, as well as other explanatory material.

That is truly amazing. What it means is that their research is available for anyone to study and understand better, among other things. It can be appropriately incorporated into different things following their guidelines. Truly amazing. And, wondrous news.

**

DOE: Energy Science and Technology Virtual Library

www.osti.gov/energyfiles/ – CachedSimilar

You +1′d this publicly.

Collections of scientific and technical information from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with a distributed searching capability.

(Note – this was the page that I was talking about earlier in this post with the most wonderful archives of information from the DOE and it is really easy to figure out and use it – cricketdiane)

http://www.osti.gov/energyfiles/

***

http://www.johnsonems.com/?q=node/2

JTEC

Johnson Thermo-Electrochemical Converter System

The JTEC is an all solid-state engine that operates on the Ericsson cycle. Equivalent to Carnot, the Ericsson cycle offers the maximum theoretical efficiency available from an engine operating between two temperatures. The JTEC system utilizes the electro-chemical potential of hydrogen pressure applied across a proton conductive membrane (PCM). The membrane and a pair of electrodes form a Membrane Electrode Assembly (MEA) similar to those used in fuel cells.

On the high-pressure side of the MEA, hydrogen gas is oxidized resulting in the creation of protons and electrons. The pressure differential forces protons through the membrane causing the electrodes to conduct electrons through an external load. On the low-pressure side, the protons are reduced with the electrons to reform hydrogen gas. This process can also operate in reverse. If current is passed through the MEA a low-pressure gas can be “pumped” to a higher pressure.

The JTEC uses two membrane electrode assembly (MEA) stacks. One stack is coupled to a high temperature heat source and the other to a low temperature heat sink. Hydrogen circulates within the engine between the two MEA stacks via a counter flow regenerative heat exchanger. The engine does not require oxygen or a continuous fuel supply, only heat.

(etc.)

***

Interesting, huh?

(from a post I made July 7, 2010 during the BP oil spill debacle of the Deepwater Horizon as it spewed zillions of cubic meters of crude oil and dispersants into the Gulf of Mexico – damn ridiculous mess they created.)

- cricketdiane

**

NC State‘s PULSTAR Reactor is a 1 MW pool-type research reactor with 4% enriched, pin-type fuel consisting of UO₂ pellets in zircaloy cladding.

Classifications

Nuclear Reactors are classified by several methods; a brief outline of these classification schemes is provided.

Classification by type of nuclear reaction

• Nuclear fission. All commercial power reactors are based on nuclear fission. They generally use uranium and its product plutonium as nuclear fuel, though a thorium fuel cycle is also possible. Fission reactors can be divided roughly into two classes, depending on the energy of the neutrons that sustain the fission chain reaction:
  • Thermal reactors use slowed or thermal neutrons. Almost all current reactors are of this type. These contain neutron moderator materials that slow neutrons until their neutron temperature is thermalized, that is, until their kinetic energy approaches the average kinetic energy of the surrounding particles. Thermal neutrons have a far higher cross section (probability) of fissioning the fissile nuclei uranium-235, plutonium-239, and plutonium-241, and a relatively lower probability of neutron capture by uranium-238 (U-238) compared to the faster neutrons that originally result from fission, allowing use of low-enriched uranium or even natural uranium fuel. The moderator is often also the coolant, usually water under high pressure to increase the boiling point. These are surrounded by reactor vessel, instrumentation to monitor and control the reactor, radiation shielding, and a containment building.
  • Fast neutron reactors use fast neutrons to cause fission in their fuel. They do not have a neutron moderator, and use less-moderating coolants. Maintaining a chain reaction requires the fuel to be more highly enriched in fissile material (about 20% or more) due to the relatively lower probability of fission versus capture by U-238. Fast reactors have the potential to produce less transuranic waste because all actinides are fissionable with fast neutrons,^[7] but they are more difficult to build and more expensive to operate. Overall, fast reactors are less common than thermal reactors in most applications. Some early power stations were fast reactors, as are some Russian naval propulsion units. Construction of prototypes is continuing (see fast breeder or generation IV reactors).
• Nuclear fusion. Fusion power is an experimental technology, generally with hydrogen as fuel. While not suitable for power production, Farnsworth-Hirsch fusors are used to produce neutron radiation.
• Radioactive decay. Examples include radioisotope thermoelectric generators as well as other types of atomic batteries, which generate heat and power by exploiting passive radioactive decay.

(from)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_technology

***

Let’s Dance

***

In nuclear physics, an energy amplifier is a novel type of nuclear power reactor, a subcritical reactor, in which an energetic particle beam is used to stimulate a reaction, which in turn releases enough energy to power the particle accelerator and leave an energy profit for power generation. The concept has more recently been referred to as an accelerator-driven system (ADS).

(from)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_amplifier

**

 

And I wanted to put this one other reactor type which is amazing -

http://www.trtr.org/Links/TRTR_February.html

 

(But, those aren’t it. Does have interesting insight into the nuclear fission stuff underway, though.)

***

This is the best little search for some good images of some of it – still not what I was trying to find -

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=academic+experimental+torus+nuclear+reactors&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS388US388&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1366&bih=580

***

Its this nifty experimental fission powered reactor – seems like the pictures from it I’ve seen are from somewhere not in America – Switzerland, Denmark, France or Russia maybe -

I’ll look through my docs to decipher where it is from and what it is called – very, very nifty, though. You just gotta see it and what it does. Really amazing.

The whole approach is different. Yep, really amazing. And, the results are spectacular, at least I think so.

- cricketdiane

***

Later . . .

**

 

‘Citizen-seismologists’ sought to host earthquake sensors on their computers

‘Citizen-seismologists’ sought to host earthquake sensors on their computers.

Definitely worthwhile. This is a great way to get the saturation needed with seismic instruments taking much more extensive readings. The main areas where they are asking people to participate are in very high risk zones of previous earthquake activity, like San Francisco, Los Angeles, the Pacific Northwest and some regions around the country.

Absolutely phenomenal approach.

 

**

More about Nuclear Fusion

I was thrilled to find this last night, which I checked into today -

http://www.newelectronics.co.uk/electronics-news/cern-unveils-open-hardware-initiative/35209/

CERN unveils Open Hardware initiative

The CERN OHL was created to govern the use, copying, modification and distribution of hardware design documentation and the manufacture and distribution of products. Hardware design documentation includes schematic diagrams, designs, circuit or circuit board layouts, mechanical drawings, flow charts and descriptive texts, as well as other explanatory material.

That is truly amazing. What it means is that their research is available for anyone to study and understand better, among other things. It can be appropriately incorporated into different things following their guidelines. Truly amazing. And, wondrous news.

To explain briefly, for anyone who may not understand how fusion is different than fission -

Fission divides.

Fusion puts together.

In this case, atoms (or molecules of atoms) – well, or parts of atoms even, are either divided such as with fission, or forced to fuse together as with fusion. In either approach, a broad spectrum of energy is given off as a result.

The idea is that, not whether it works because we can see that it does in every star across the universe, but rather – how can science make atomic fusion occur in a controlled and controllable manner. That is the real challenge our science community is fighting with fusion. They create hot systems that require a great deal of energy in order to generate the possibility of fusion occurring and literally force a type of high energy containment on the experimental materials to maintain control of them. And, it has a lot of very sophisticated equipment being used to do it. The question is, will the theories of what initiates the fusions to occur actually be proven or will something else be discovered as a result of the work they are doing. And, at each point our scientists, physicists, engineers and mathematicians are learning more about the nature of it.

So, a long time ago in my life, I thought things like this very important. And, I believe they are important now, even more so. We need new ways to capture, harness and generate electricity for today and future generations. We need new ways to move our cars and vehicles. We need new efficient and controllable ways of taking one form of energy to effectively make another that is desirable without harmful byproducts and unintended consequences of doing it. We all need that and every place on the planet needs that. It isn’t appropriate, given what we know – to go back to darkness, where lights don’t exist because we cannot power them. That doesn’t make sense when such progress for mankind can be offered by simple electricity being available to power a modernized integrated world.

**

Obviously, it is not enough for two atoms to simply get close to one another in order for fusion to occur. And, fusion isn’t exactly a chemical reaction as might be easily recognizable. Something else happens in fusion which generates a next higher order elemental atomic material from the original. Right now, our laboratories are using the largest atomic set possible in their experiments although to the naked eye, these would appear to be impossible to see or manipulate and obscenely small in comparison to the macro systems of stars, (or even our everyday world.) It would literally take thousands of these reactions occurring in a controlled manner to generate enough energy to be harnessed for any real purposes.

At this point, the theories are being tested still and the mathematics are being derived from the actual test results. There are things that happen when fusion even comes close to occurring which have required substantially more complex equations to understand because they are time dependent, non-linear, dynamic, dimensional and fluid, rather than static, “logical” or simply predictable. It is kind of like what happens when particles at the nano levels exhibit unusually complex characteristics dynamically different than the original materials would have at another scale. This is partly because the surface area of every single particle increases exponentially on the nano scale.

The same is true for the atomic scale of things. The same atom in a molecule within a stable configuration exhibits differing characteristics from an atom in an unstable system or configuration. And, an atom doesn’t get much more unstable anywhere in the universe than it would being bombarded at a collider facility or being forced into division in a nuclear armament or as it is being both bombarded and contained with electromagnetic and RF fields to maintain control of it. That is, except when stars are being made and those original fusions are occurring – atoms are extremely unstable at those points, too and they excite easily, they are fluid as are the particles that make up the atom and they are tangibly unstable with extreme characteristics to hear physicists explain it.

And, here is something I believe – and it may or may not be true, but it is observable – stars (and our sun) develop and exist within a cold system – in fact, they come to exist within the ultra cold vacuum of space. The heat and energy they generate are a result of fusion rather than the cause of the fusions themselves. It is evident. And fusion happens without any containment whatsoever. So what makes it happen? Why is there a gravitational pull to those spaces in the universe that exhibit the coming into being of a star or a planet or where a nebulae is forming? Why do those particles join rather than colliding with one another and causing a fission reaction? Why is that?

How does that same cosmic soup recreate even on the most microscopic scales here on earth such that we can see it when we get out an electron microscope to look at it?

- cricketdiane

**

Our physicists say these are exotic particles, exotic reactions, exotic and unusual systems – well, maybe they’re not exotic nor unusual at all. Maybe that is how they operate and our understanding of it is exotic and unusual in its basis.

**

It would have to be an “attractive force” that causes stars to form and fusion to begin occurring rather than an accidental combining of things or a hot system pressuring the elements to combine. There would be centrifugal forces at work, atomic excitement at the level of the proton and neutron, spinning powerful attractions within the elements themselves in order for these things to occur. And, there is proof that fusions occur and at some point, began occurring in a tandem series, integrated, fluctuating, plasmotic and ovaloidal – dimensionally more like fluid than electricity or the way we think of atoms behaving.

What if the naturally occurring forms for atoms and atomic structures do not fit our pretty little atomic models and are not naturally symmetric and stable? Looking at the dynamic system a little differently – what if fusion is asynchronous with an accelerated unstable internal gravitational field and excitement levels that simply defy our models because our models do not exemplify reality? What if the natural organically occurring atomic instability is a contributing factor to fusion being possible? What then would we do setting up the conditions for that attractive force to occur?

Cold systems – (from a card I wrote the other day) -

The stars and our sun are actually accomplished as “cold systems” within a cold external environment, rather than in a hot one as our scientists are trying to do. The heat that is being manufactured in them and the pressures of the system within these stars are from the fusions occurring within the system, which is both dimensionally active and as an asymmetric equilibrium is being maintained throughout the system. Externally, these systems sit in near zero pressure, in an ultra-cold environ.

What sets up the initial spin unless that spin is already inherent in the system’s components, even at the atomic levels? Is the sun proton heavy as suggested in measurements? Is it a purely electro-chemical reaction with by-products that yield heat and light? No. It is an integrated, dynamic system with fluctuations that create the conditions for new fusion reactions which set up new parameters of unbalanced equilibrium within the system to manufacture other high density zones of plasma and electro-chemical activity which set up the conditions for other fusions to occur. (Or something fairly close to that.)

How could we look at that using a slice of the pie style of mathematics, when in all the facts displayed, it is an integrated system within slices of time, fully dimensional and in some measure, ever setting up the unbalanced conditions that seek equilibrium and balance producing fusion among atomic components as a result? And, wouldn’t the systems we use to create fusion need to be the same – where in one moment of time the conditions are being created for the later elemental chaos of the system to seek equilibrium and produce atomic fusion in order to do so? Wouldn’t that do it for us just as the system does it for our sun (and other stars)?

Rather than stripping components and bombarding them with high pressures, high energy particles, high heat, and extreme containment measures, wouldn’t we need to look at fusions as a possibility from an integrated dynamic and fluid system within a matrix in flux, in instability, in dynamic fractional chaos, in asymmetric and asynchronous equilibrium as a whole system? And then the confinement and containment questions could be answered with the parameters of that system organically describing what would work to harness, contain and maintain control for the energy we want to derive from it? After all, our only real goal in producing fission or fusion, either one – is to derive the useful work energy of those reactions. That is the goal. If it can’t be used to power anything, then it is nothing more than nice to know scientific field work. And, it is definitely capable of so much more than that.

When fission occurs, we can see the devastating power it has had to decimate everything for miles upon miles around it. We can see the resultant energy, powerful radiation of various types, electromagnetic forces, electron activity, heat and light that the atomic fusions in our sun and other stars are manufacturing constantly many times a microsecond. We can measure these things. We can see them. The energy available to be harnessed is definitely there by forcing the atomic level constituents to divide unnaturally as in atomic fission or by fulfilling the conditions for the atoms to fuse in a fusion reaction and give off power as a result.

It has been said that the atomic power contained in one single drop of sea water could power our world for generations, if we were able to release it properly in an atomic fusion reactor. And, that is likely true. The dual hydrogen atoms do exist in the drop of seawater, as with many other forms of water. There are a multitude of atoms in a drop of seawater and thus a multitude of materials for fusion to utilize. And, then we would have helium and a whole lot of light and sound and energy all at the same time going everywhere outwards at once simultaneously. Or at least, that’s the theory.

**

So, what if you wanted to know more about this and make your own calculations concerning it? Where could that be found online?

Well – hmmmm……….

What if, we do a google search using these terms -

macroscopic energy systems

which yes, yields this page – of google results -

http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=macroscopic+energy+systems&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS388US388&ie=UTF-8

That is a good place to start.

**

Any and all of the entries on the first page of these search results will give a better understanding and very interesting reading in light of quantum physics, dynamic non-linear system characteristics and asymmetrically “balanced” system configurations (and principles) – it is very interesting in light of fusion occurring at the atomic scale and what happens when that occurs, what could “cause” it to occur and both, the conditions that could potentially provide for it and the possibilities for harnessing the power from the fusion reactions once they are occurring. Rather than looking at fusion as a mechanically separate phenomenon – thermodynamic approaches yield a more integrated holistic approach to the problem and it is easier to find the calculations that need to be made for it, (most of the equations to use.) It gives a way to look at dynamic, changing systems within the context that they seek equilibrium creating new constituents in the system as a result of the process. (My note, it is less like rocket science, although it is -  and more like baking a cake in how it approaches the changes occurring in the system.)

**

- cricketdiane

(and then check out the google results of page three of the search from macroscopic energy systems)

For these results -

1. [PDF]

   Macroscopic prediction – Probability Theory As Extended Logic

   

   You +1′d this publicly. Undo

   bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/macroscopic.prediction.pdfSimilar

   File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
   the total macroscopic energy; if so, then the long time behavior of a system must be determined by its energy. What we see about us does not suggest this. …

   ►

2. [PDF]

   1 4.2 Macro versus micro (Hiroshi Matsuoka) Macroscopic …

   

   You +1′d this publicly. Undo

   www.phy.ilstu.edu/~hmb/phys325/TPCh4.2and4.3(09).pdf

   File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
   Macroscopic and microscopic quantities. Macroscopic state variables such as the internal energy and the pressure of a system have …

3. [PDF]

   1. Principles of Thermodynamics

   

   You +1′d this publicly. Undo

   theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~stafyi/SPI06chap1.pdfSimilar

   File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
   chemical equilibrium: no changes in the macroscopic chemical compo- sition of the system;. • thermal equilibrium: no macroscopic energy flows in a system in …

4. Biofuels in the energy transition beyond peak oil. : : A …

   

   You +1′d this publicly. Undo

   linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0360544207000941

   by M Robèrt – 2007 – Cited by 9 – Related articles
   Jump to Macroscopic modelling system of vehicle efficiency and urban mobility‎: The SAMPERS and EMME/2 combination is well suited for energy and …

5. [PDF]

   Macroscopic fracture characteristics of random particle systems

   

   You +1′d this publicly. Undo

   www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/332.pdf

   File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
   by M JIRASEK – 1995 – Cited by 35 – Related articles
   macroscopic fracture energy and the mean etfective process zone size of two-dimensional particle systems on the basic microscopic characteristics such as …

6. Photovoltaics Research

   

   You +1′d this publicly. Undo

   pv.mit.edu/research.html – CachedSimilar

   The mission of the Photovoltaics Research Lab is to reduce the cost of solar energy, … thermal, and magnetic properties of macroscopic energy systems. …

7. [PDF]

   Integral (Macroscopic) Balance Equations

   

   You +1′d this publicly. Undo

   faculty.poly.edu/~rlevicky/Handout5_6333.pdfSimilar

   File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
   The next task is to express mass, momentum and energy balance laws for a …… exchanges of mass, momentum, and energy between a macroscopic system and the …

8. Transfer of Vibrational Energy in Dye-Doped Polymers …

   

   You +1′d this publicly. Undo

   onlinelibrary.wiley.com › … › Book Home

   by J Baier – Related articles
   Dec 21, 2006 – Transfer of Vibrational Energy in Dye-Doped Polymers … Macromolecular Systems: Microscopic Interactions and Macroscopic Properties: Final …

9. Tight-binding calculations of total energies of macroscopic polar …

   

   You +1′d this publicly. Undo

   www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022024890909903

   by J Neugebauer – 1990 – Cited by 2 – Related articles
   Sep 20, 2002 – Total energies of macroscopic polar electron-core systems are calculated by means of a new post initio method. The ground state statistical …

10. Kinetic Energy, Work, Momentum, Force times Time, and Force dot …

    

    You +1′d this publicly. Undo

    www.av8n.com/physics/kinetic-energy.htm – CachedSimilar

    1 Kinetic Energy; 2 Work; 3 The Work / Kinetic Energy Theorems … where we take into account the motion of every microscopic particle in the system: …