Jump to content






Photo

Green Fraud


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 21 February 2012 - 07:50 AM

http://dailycaller.c...-as-chevy-volt/

http://www.slate.com...subsidies_.html

I started college in 1980 right before Carter lost. When I was a junior and senior I had some contact with departments at the university which had soaked up/wasted government green energy money on solar projects. I had also seen various solar projects scattered around Nebraska subsidized to be on people's rooftops. Of course all of that work was eventually junked and nothing came of it. The physics has not changed since that time. The same collectivist types are still promoting green energy. The one thing you can say about collectivists - they do not learn. It is always a case of - oh it will work next time - when their approach to problems has never worked except in a temporary sense anywhere ever. Its only success is in enriching a connected few - while eventually creating misery for the rest.

Dennis

#2 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 10,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:43 AM

http://dailycaller.c...-as-chevy-volt/

http://www.slate.com...subsidies_.html

I started college in 1980 right before Carter lost. When I was a junior and senior I had some contact with departments at the university which had soaked up/wasted government green energy money on solar projects. I had also seen various solar projects scattered around Nebraska subsidized to be on people's rooftops. Of course all of that work was eventually junked and nothing came of it. The physics has not changed since that time. The same collectivist types are still promoting green energy. The one thing you can say about collectivists - they do not learn. It is always a case of - oh it will work next time - when their approach to problems has never worked except in a temporary sense anywhere ever. Its only success is in enriching a connected few - while eventually creating misery for the rest.

Dennis


http://dailycaller.c...-as-chevy-volt/

http://www.slate.com...subsidies_.html

I started college in 1980 right before Carter lost. When I was a junior and senior I had some contact with departments at the university which had soaked up/wasted government green energy money on solar projects. I had also seen various solar projects scattered around Nebraska subsidized to be on people's rooftops. Of course all of that work was eventually junked and nothing came of it. The physics has not changed since that time. The same collectivist types are still promoting green energy. The one thing you can say about collectivists - they do not learn. It is always a case of - oh it will work next time - when their approach to problems has never worked except in a temporary sense anywhere ever. Its only success is in enriching a connected few - while eventually creating misery for the rest.

Dennis


The forms of energy-from-sunlight do work (sort of). The are photovoltaic conversion, hydroelectric generation and wind turbine generation. Individually and all together they are inefficient and unable to maintain a sufficient base line level of electric power generation. The alternatives -- nuclear fission, geothermal heat conversion and fusion. The first exists but is not being deployed in sufficient quantity (why?) and the latter two are simply insufficient in practice. We cannot get fusion to produce more energy than was used to start the fusion re-action and we have no practical means of exploiting geothermal heat (exception in Iceland, those lucky folk, who live on a crack in the Earth). Which leaves us with coal, oil and gas where we have been for the last 100 years.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#3 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:00 AM


http://dailycaller.c...-as-chevy-volt/

http://www.slate.com...subsidies_.html

I started college in 1980 right before Carter lost. When I was a junior and senior I had some contact with departments at the university which had soaked up/wasted government green energy money on solar projects. I had also seen various solar projects scattered around Nebraska subsidized to be on people's rooftops. Of course all of that work was eventually junked and nothing came of it. The physics has not changed since that time. The same collectivist types are still promoting green energy. The one thing you can say about collectivists - they do not learn. It is always a case of - oh it will work next time - when their approach to problems has never worked except in a temporary sense anywhere ever. Its only success is in enriching a connected few - while eventually creating misery for the rest.

Dennis


http://dailycaller.c...-as-chevy-volt/

http://www.slate.com...subsidies_.html

I started college in 1980 right before Carter lost. When I was a junior and senior I had some contact with departments at the university which had soaked up/wasted government green energy money on solar projects. I had also seen various solar projects scattered around Nebraska subsidized to be on people's rooftops. Of course all of that work was eventually junked and nothing came of it. The physics has not changed since that time. The same collectivist types are still promoting green energy. The one thing you can say about collectivists - they do not learn. It is always a case of - oh it will work next time - when their approach to problems has never worked except in a temporary sense anywhere ever. Its only success is in enriching a connected few - while eventually creating misery for the rest.

Dennis


The forms of energy-from-sunlight do work (sort of). The are photovoltaic conversion, hydroelectric generation and wind turbine generation. Individually and all together they are inefficient and unable to maintain a sufficient base line level of electric power generation. The alternatives -- nuclear fission, geothermal heat conversion and fusion. The first exists but is not being deployed in sufficient quantity (why?) and the latter two are simply insufficient in practice. We cannot get fusion to produce more energy than was used to start the fusion re-action and we have no practical means of exploiting geothermal heat (exception in Iceland, those lucky folk, who live on a crack in the Earth). Which leaves us with coal, oil and gas where we have been for the last 100 years.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The insufficient quantity in nuclear includes other materials [thorium], breeder reactors, and hybrid fission/fusion which would be limitless regardless of other fusion approaches ever being successful. Additionally fission/fusion and some other reactors would be able to use up/burn up all the nuclear waste generated to date. Economically the waste is an untapped gold mine of rare elements and will some day be treated as such - it may be a mistake to intend to burn it up or bury it.

Dennis

#4 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 10,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:51 AM

The insufficient quantity in nuclear includes other materials [thorium], breeder reactors, and hybrid fission/fusion which would be limitless regardless of other fusion approaches ever being successful. Additionally fission/fusion and some other reactors would be able to use up/burn up all the nuclear waste generated to date. Economically the waste is an untapped gold mine of rare elements and will some day be treated as such - it may be a mistake to intend to burn it up or bury it.

Dennis


Clearly thorium breeders are the wave of the future (if they are ever deployed). Breeders solve the spent fuel by eliminating the spent fuel to make more primary fissile fuel.

I would not give a bent drachma for controlled fusion. The prospects do not look good. We can produce fusion reactions but the energy input needed to bang two nuclei together overcoming the coulomb force of the repelling protons and engaging the strong nuclear is very large and so far we have not achieved break even by any of the techniques attempted so far. Controlled fusion has been 30 years in the future for the last 60 years. I am betting we won't get it any time soon, if ever. Thorium fission is clearly the way to go. Also if we ever learn to tap the geothermal heat of the planet we shall never want for energy while our species still exists on this planet. The safest and best fission reactor on the planet is the molten core of the planet.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#5 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 21 February 2012 - 11:03 AM


The insufficient quantity in nuclear includes other materials [thorium], breeder reactors, and hybrid fission/fusion which would be limitless regardless of other fusion approaches ever being successful. Additionally fission/fusion and some other reactors would be able to use up/burn up all the nuclear waste generated to date. Economically the waste is an untapped gold mine of rare elements and will some day be treated as such - it may be a mistake to intend to burn it up or bury it.

Dennis


Clearly thorium breeders are the wave of the future (if they are ever deployed). Breeders solve the spent fuel by eliminating the spent fuel to make more primary fissile fuel.

I would not give a bent drachma for controlled fusion. The prospects do not look good. We can produce fusion reactions but the energy input needed to bang two nuclei together overcoming the coulomb force of the repelling protons and engaging the strong nuclear is very large and so far we have not achieved break even by any of the techniques attempted so far. Controlled fusion has been 30 years in the future for the last 60 years. I am betting we won't get it any time soon, if ever. Thorium fission is clearly the way to go. Also if we ever learn to tap the geothermal heat of the planet we shall never want for energy while our species still exists on this planet. The safest and best fission reactor on the planet is the molten core of the planet.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am no fan of any of the orthodox fusion approaches. They all smack of government make-work programs never intended to ever produce anything useful. A diversion. I do however support private research in alternative approaches to fusion. There is no energy shortage on Earth - just a shortage of brains. I am interested in alternative fusion because there is a real place for it in the settlement of space and various energetic propulsion methods. Thorium is good stuff for here at home. There are many good options in fission and hybrid fission/fusion. Any time you hear some anti-nuclear person even beginning to talk about shortages of nuclear materials you know you are hearing someone wanting to stunt economic growth in the West in support of a collectivist agenda.

Dennis

#6 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 10,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:14 PM

I am interested in alternative fusion because there is a real place for it in the settlement of space and various energetic propulsion methods. Thorium is good stuff for here at home. There are many good options in fission and hybrid fission/fusion. Any time you hear some anti-nuclear person even beginning to talk about shortages of nuclear materials you know you are hearing someone wanting to stunt economic growth in the West in support of a collectivist agenda.


Dennis


There never was an energy shortage. As long as the Sun shines, rain falls, gravity gravitates and the core of the planet is hotter than the surface of the sun, and fissile materials at available, there is energy. It is there. All we need do is go and harvest it.

Shortages are for people who like to ration stuff. Guess who will get the larger share? Those who print the ration stamps.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#7 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 10,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:16 PM



The insufficient quantity in nuclear includes other materials [thorium], breeder reactors, and hybrid fission/fusion which would be limitless regardless of other fusion approaches ever being successful. Additionally fission/fusion and some other reactors would be able to use up/burn up all the nuclear waste generated to date. Economically the waste is an untapped gold mine of rare elements and will some day be treated as such - it may be a mistake to intend to burn it up or bury it.

Dennis


Clearly thorium breeders are the wave of the future (if they are ever deployed). Breeders solve the spent fuel by eliminating the spent fuel to make more primary fissile fuel.

I would not give a bent drachma for controlled fusion. The prospects do not look good. We can produce fusion reactions but the energy input needed to bang two nuclei together overcoming the coulomb force of the repelling protons and engaging the strong nuclear is very large and so far we have not achieved break even by any of the techniques attempted so far. Controlled fusion has been 30 years in the future for the last 60 years. I am betting we won't get it any time soon, if ever. Thorium fission is clearly the way to go. Also if we ever learn to tap the geothermal heat of the planet we shall never want for energy while our species still exists on this planet. The safest and best fission reactor on the planet is the molten core of the planet.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am no fan of any of the orthodox fusion approaches. They all smack of government make-work programs never intended to ever produce anything useful. A diversion. I do however support private research in alternative approaches to fusion. There is no energy shortage on Earth - just a shortage of brains. I am interested in alternative fusion because there is a real place for it in the settlement of space and various energetic propulsion methods. Thorium is good stuff for here at home. There are many good options in fission and hybrid fission/fusion. Any time you hear some anti-nuclear person even beginning to talk about shortages of nuclear materials you know you are hearing someone wanting to stunt economic growth in the West in support of a collectivist agenda.

Dennis




The insufficient quantity in nuclear includes other materials [thorium], breeder reactors, and hybrid fission/fusion which would be limitless regardless of other fusion approaches ever being successful. Additionally fission/fusion and some other reactors would be able to use up/burn up all the nuclear waste generated to date. Economically the waste is an untapped gold mine of rare elements and will some day be treated as such - it may be a mistake to intend to burn it up or bury it.

Dennis


Clearly thorium breeders are the wave of the future (if they are ever deployed). Breeders solve the spent fuel by eliminating the spent fuel to make more primary fissile fuel.

I would not give a bent drachma for controlled fusion. The prospects do not look good. We can produce fusion reactions but the energy input needed to bang two nuclei together overcoming the coulomb force of the repelling protons and engaging the strong nuclear is very large and so far we have not achieved break even by any of the techniques attempted so far. Controlled fusion has been 30 years in the future for the last 60 years. I am betting we won't get it any time soon, if ever. Thorium fission is clearly the way to go. Also if we ever learn to tap the geothermal heat of the planet we shall never want for energy while our species still exists on this planet. The safest and best fission reactor on the planet is the molten core of the planet.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am no fan of any of the orthodox fusion approaches. They all smack of government make-work programs never intended to ever produce anything useful. A diversion. I do however support private research in alternative approaches to fusion. There is no energy shortage on Earth - just a shortage of brains. I am interested in alternative fusion because there is a real place for it in the settlement of space and various energetic propulsion methods. Thorium is good stuff for here at home. There are many good options in fission and hybrid fission/fusion. Any time you hear some anti-nuclear person even beginning to talk about shortages of nuclear materials you know you are hearing someone wanting to stunt economic growth in the West in support of a collectivist agenda.

Dennis


A word of caution, Dennis. "Cold Fusion" is bogus. It has to be hot, i.e. very energetic to overcome the coulomb repulsion and get the nucleons close enough for the strong force to do its thing.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#8 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:46 PM

A word of caution, Dennis. "Cold Fusion" is bogus. It has to be hot, i.e. very energetic to overcome the coulomb repulsion and get the nucleons close enough for the strong force to do its thing.

I was not speaking of "Cold Fusion". There are several alternative paths to hot fusion not being funded, others being inadequately funded. I follow a few I am interested in. I have one approach in particular I would like to try.

Dennis

#9 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 10,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 02:21 PM


A word of caution, Dennis. "Cold Fusion" is bogus. It has to be hot, i.e. very energetic to overcome the coulomb repulsion and get the nucleons close enough for the strong force to do its thing.

I was not speaking of "Cold Fusion". There are several alternative paths to hot fusion not being funded, others being inadequately funded. I follow a few I am interested in. I have one approach in particular I would like to try.

Dennis


Pray do tell us what it is.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#10 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 21 February 2012 - 02:27 PM



A word of caution, Dennis. "Cold Fusion" is bogus. It has to be hot, i.e. very energetic to overcome the coulomb repulsion and get the nucleons close enough for the strong force to do its thing.

I was not speaking of "Cold Fusion". There are several alternative paths to hot fusion not being funded, others being inadequately funded. I follow a few I am interested in. I have one approach in particular I would like to try.

Dennis


Pray do tell us what it is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

From the original e-mail I sent to: IEC_Fusion@yahoogroups.com <IEC_Fusion@yahoogroups.com>;Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:06 PM

Something I have not seen discussed is the concept of using designer molecular cages to confine fusion atoms in close proximity - with the high energy impact between cages or cages and a target directing the energy for final fusion.

We know a great deal of effort has been expended in lasers for inertial confinement pellet fusion - I visited the Los Alamos facility 20 years ago. Designer cages would bridge the size between pellets and free atoms. Colliding designer cages could confine and direct the fusion reactants at higher temperatures and pressures than possible by any other means we can engineer at present. These molecular cages could be sorted to be identical - stored at room temperature as a solid or in liquid suspension until ready to use. The volume of material you could process by this means would seem to be larger than that available in a gas without the precision placement required of pellets.

The deformation of these cages could be much like a combination of the energy directing processes of shape charge warheads, deep penetrating bunker buster bombs, or shape charge E&M weapons. Properly oriented long l/d molecular cages impacting the right kind of target could focus nearly all their kinetic energy into a tiny portion of the molecular cage causing effectively huge confinement temperatures and pressures for several or dozens of fusion atoms.

Unlike many fusion proposals this is the kind of study that PhD students using QM modeling software of large molecules could base their doctorate on - not only for fusion studies but for high temperature and pressure short lived chemical reaction studies. They can test their modeling with electrostatic accelerators into transparent diamond blocks or other targets appropriate to the equipment they have available. Instead of diamond pressure anvils they can acquire pressures many magnitudes higher - for short periods of time. In IEC confinement they could explore reactions where the impact is between cages instead of a cage and a target. Broken cages would have vastly different masses and should be able to be swept from the scene rapidly.

Visualize such a molecular cage as a long cone or bowling pin - trapping atoms inside. The cage is electrically charged with the base of the cone impacting the target and the rest of the cone impacting on the atoms slamming into the base. Of course if all the atoms involved were capable of fusion - all the better. Carbon nanotubes with both ends capped might be a good place to start experiments. A fine exercise left up to the student.

Dennis May

#11 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 14,795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:55 PM

Posted Image

Posted Image
Odd one out: The Secretary of State, in her lime green shirt, was placed in the middle of 30 foreign leaders - all dressed in crisp white shirts - for the G20 'family photo' in Los Cabos[/left]
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#12 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 10,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:57 PM




A word of caution, Dennis. "Cold Fusion" is bogus. It has to be hot, i.e. very energetic to overcome the coulomb repulsion and get the nucleons close enough for the strong force to do its thing.

I was not speaking of "Cold Fusion". There are several alternative paths to hot fusion not being funded, others being inadequately funded. I follow a few I am interested in. I have one approach in particular I would like to try.

Dennis


Pray do tell us what it is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

From the original e-mail I sent to: IEC_Fusion@yahoogroups.com <IEC_Fusion@yahoogroups.com>;Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:06 PM

Something I have not seen discussed is the concept of using designer molecular cages to confine fusion atoms in close proximity - with the high energy impact between cages or cages and a target directing the energy for final fusion.

We know a great deal of effort has been expended in lasers for inertial confinement pellet fusion - I visited the Los Alamos facility 20 years ago. Designer cages would bridge the size between pellets and free atoms. Colliding designer cages could confine and direct the fusion reactants at higher temperatures and pressures than possible by any other means we can engineer at present. These molecular cages could be sorted to be identical - stored at room temperature as a solid or in liquid suspension until ready to use. The volume of material you could process by this means would seem to be larger than that available in a gas without the precision placement required of pellets.

The deformation of these cages could be much like a combination of the energy directing processes of shape charge warheads, deep penetrating bunker buster bombs, or shape charge E&M weapons. Properly oriented long l/d molecular cages impacting the right kind of target could focus nearly all their kinetic energy into a tiny portion of the molecular cage causing effectively huge confinement temperatures and pressures for several or dozens of fusion atoms.

Unlike many fusion proposals this is the kind of study that PhD students using QM modeling software of large molecules could base their doctorate on - not only for fusion studies but for high temperature and pressure short lived chemical reaction studies. They can test their modeling with electrostatic accelerators into transparent diamond blocks or other targets appropriate to the equipment they have available. Instead of diamond pressure anvils they can acquire pressures many magnitudes higher - for short periods of time. In IEC confinement they could explore reactions where the impact is between cages instead of a cage and a target. Broken cages would have vastly different masses and should be able to be swept from the scene rapidly.

Visualize such a molecular cage as a long cone or bowling pin - trapping atoms inside. The cage is electrically charged with the base of the cone impacting the target and the rest of the cone impacting on the atoms slamming into the base. Of course if all the atoms involved were capable of fusion - all the better. Carbon nanotubes with both ends capped might be a good place to start experiments. A fine exercise left up to the student.

Dennis May





A word of caution, Dennis. "Cold Fusion" is bogus. It has to be hot, i.e. very energetic to overcome the coulomb repulsion and get the nucleons close enough for the strong force to do its thing.

I was not speaking of "Cold Fusion". There are several alternative paths to hot fusion not being funded, others being inadequately funded. I follow a few I am interested in. I have one approach in particular I would like to try.

Dennis


Pray do tell us what it is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

From the original e-mail I sent to: IEC_Fusion@yahoogroups.com <IEC_Fusion@yahoogroups.com>;Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:06 PM

Something I have not seen discussed is the concept of using designer molecular cages to confine fusion atoms in close proximity - with the high energy impact between cages or cages and a target directing the energy for final fusion.

We know a great deal of effort has been expended in lasers for inertial confinement pellet fusion - I visited the Los Alamos facility 20 years ago. Designer cages would bridge the size between pellets and free atoms. Colliding designer cages could confine and direct the fusion reactants at higher temperatures and pressures than possible by any other means we can engineer at present. These molecular cages could be sorted to be identical - stored at room temperature as a solid or in liquid suspension until ready to use. The volume of material you could process by this means would seem to be larger than that available in a gas without the precision placement required of pellets.

The deformation of these cages could be much like a combination of the energy directing processes of shape charge warheads, deep penetrating bunker buster bombs, or shape charge E&M weapons. Properly oriented long l/d molecular cages impacting the right kind of target could focus nearly all their kinetic energy into a tiny portion of the molecular cage causing effectively huge confinement temperatures and pressures for several or dozens of fusion atoms.

Unlike many fusion proposals this is the kind of study that PhD students using QM modeling software of large molecules could base their doctorate on - not only for fusion studies but for high temperature and pressure short lived chemical reaction studies. They can test their modeling with electrostatic accelerators into transparent diamond blocks or other targets appropriate to the equipment they have available. Instead of diamond pressure anvils they can acquire pressures many magnitudes higher - for short periods of time. In IEC confinement they could explore reactions where the impact is between cages instead of a cage and a target. Broken cages would have vastly different masses and should be able to be swept from the scene rapidly.

Visualize such a molecular cage as a long cone or bowling pin - trapping atoms inside. The cage is electrically charged with the base of the cone impacting the target and the rest of the cone impacting on the atoms slamming into the base. Of course if all the atoms involved were capable of fusion - all the better. Carbon nanotubes with both ends capped might be a good place to start experiments. A fine exercise left up to the student.

Dennis May


What serious work has been done using this approach? Anything in the refereed journals or arXiv?

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#13 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 21 February 2012 - 04:06 PM





A word of caution, Dennis. "Cold Fusion" is bogus. It has to be hot, i.e. very energetic to overcome the coulomb repulsion and get the nucleons close enough for the strong force to do its thing.

I was not speaking of "Cold Fusion". There are several alternative paths to hot fusion not being funded, others being inadequately funded. I follow a few I am interested in. I have one approach in particular I would like to try.

Dennis


Pray do tell us what it is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

From the original e-mail I sent to: IEC_Fusion@yahoogroups.com <IEC_Fusion@yahoogroups.com>;Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:06 PM

Something I have not seen discussed is the concept of using designer molecular cages to confine fusion atoms in close proximity - with the high energy impact between cages or cages and a target directing the energy for final fusion.

We know a great deal of effort has been expended in lasers for inertial confinement pellet fusion - I visited the Los Alamos facility 20 years ago. Designer cages would bridge the size between pellets and free atoms. Colliding designer cages could confine and direct the fusion reactants at higher temperatures and pressures than possible by any other means we can engineer at present. These molecular cages could be sorted to be identical - stored at room temperature as a solid or in liquid suspension until ready to use. The volume of material you could process by this means would seem to be larger than that available in a gas without the precision placement required of pellets.

The deformation of these cages could be much like a combination of the energy directing processes of shape charge warheads, deep penetrating bunker buster bombs, or shape charge E&M weapons. Properly oriented long l/d molecular cages impacting the right kind of target could focus nearly all their kinetic energy into a tiny portion of the molecular cage causing effectively huge confinement temperatures and pressures for several or dozens of fusion atoms.

Unlike many fusion proposals this is the kind of study that PhD students using QM modeling software of large molecules could base their doctorate on - not only for fusion studies but for high temperature and pressure short lived chemical reaction studies. They can test their modeling with electrostatic accelerators into transparent diamond blocks or other targets appropriate to the equipment they have available. Instead of diamond pressure anvils they can acquire pressures many magnitudes higher - for short periods of time. In IEC confinement they could explore reactions where the impact is between cages instead of a cage and a target. Broken cages would have vastly different masses and should be able to be swept from the scene rapidly.

Visualize such a molecular cage as a long cone or bowling pin - trapping atoms inside. The cage is electrically charged with the base of the cone impacting the target and the rest of the cone impacting on the atoms slamming into the base. Of course if all the atoms involved were capable of fusion - all the better. Carbon nanotubes with both ends capped might be a good place to start experiments. A fine exercise left up to the student.

Dennis May





A word of caution, Dennis. "Cold Fusion" is bogus. It has to be hot, i.e. very energetic to overcome the coulomb repulsion and get the nucleons close enough for the strong force to do its thing.

I was not speaking of "Cold Fusion". There are several alternative paths to hot fusion not being funded, others being inadequately funded. I follow a few I am interested in. I have one approach in particular I would like to try.

Dennis


Pray do tell us what it is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

From the original e-mail I sent to: IEC_Fusion@yahoogroups.com <IEC_Fusion@yahoogroups.com>;Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:06 PM

Something I have not seen discussed is the concept of using designer molecular cages to confine fusion atoms in close proximity - with the high energy impact between cages or cages and a target directing the energy for final fusion.

We know a great deal of effort has been expended in lasers for inertial confinement pellet fusion - I visited the Los Alamos facility 20 years ago. Designer cages would bridge the size between pellets and free atoms. Colliding designer cages could confine and direct the fusion reactants at higher temperatures and pressures than possible by any other means we can engineer at present. These molecular cages could be sorted to be identical - stored at room temperature as a solid or in liquid suspension until ready to use. The volume of material you could process by this means would seem to be larger than that available in a gas without the precision placement required of pellets.

The deformation of these cages could be much like a combination of the energy directing processes of shape charge warheads, deep penetrating bunker buster bombs, or shape charge E&M weapons. Properly oriented long l/d molecular cages impacting the right kind of target could focus nearly all their kinetic energy into a tiny portion of the molecular cage causing effectively huge confinement temperatures and pressures for several or dozens of fusion atoms.

Unlike many fusion proposals this is the kind of study that PhD students using QM modeling software of large molecules could base their doctorate on - not only for fusion studies but for high temperature and pressure short lived chemical reaction studies. They can test their modeling with electrostatic accelerators into transparent diamond blocks or other targets appropriate to the equipment they have available. Instead of diamond pressure anvils they can acquire pressures many magnitudes higher - for short periods of time. In IEC confinement they could explore reactions where the impact is between cages instead of a cage and a target. Broken cages would have vastly different masses and should be able to be swept from the scene rapidly.

Visualize such a molecular cage as a long cone or bowling pin - trapping atoms inside. The cage is electrically charged with the base of the cone impacting the target and the rest of the cone impacting on the atoms slamming into the base. Of course if all the atoms involved were capable of fusion - all the better. Carbon nanotubes with both ends capped might be a good place to start experiments. A fine exercise left up to the student.

Dennis May


What serious work has been done using this approach? Anything in the refereed journals or arXiv?

Ba'al Chatzaf

As far as I know I'm the only one discussing the subject at all. I knew people doing diamond anvil work in graduate school, I met people doing laser pellet fusion work while in the Air Force. The only remotely similar thing I have seen was a Chinese fusion plan to launch much larger pellets using an accelerator into a deuterium gas target. I used to do shape charge and bunker buster modeling so I have some idea of what to expect in shaped molecule impacts but I have not done the modeling yet. I just got my new version of Fortran for Windows 7 a few months ago.

Dennis

#14 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 10,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 04:08 PM


As far as I know I'm the only one discussing the subject at all. I knew people doing diamond anvil work in graduate school, I met people doing laser pellet fusion work while in the Air Force. The only remotely similar thing I have seen was a Chinese fusion plan to launch much larger pellets using an accelerator into a deuterium gas target. I used to do shape charge and bunker buster modeling so I have some idea of what to expect in shaped molecule impacts but I have not done the modeling yet. I just got my new version of Fortran for Windows 7 a few months ago.

Dennis


Good luck. I hope you can connect with someone with the $$$$$ to follow through with this.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#15 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 21 February 2012 - 07:31 PM



As far as I know I'm the only one discussing the subject at all. I knew people doing diamond anvil work in graduate school, I met people doing laser pellet fusion work while in the Air Force. The only remotely similar thing I have seen was a Chinese fusion plan to launch much larger pellets using an accelerator into a deuterium gas target. I used to do shape charge and bunker buster modeling so I have some idea of what to expect in shaped molecule impacts but I have not done the modeling yet. I just got my new version of Fortran for Windows 7 a few months ago.

Dennis


Good luck. I hope you can connect with someone with the $$$$$ to follow through with this.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What I found out 3 years ago is that the equipment is expensive but manageable - I got several thousand dollars into that part. About 1/3 of the way into the minimum amount of equipment required I discovered the largest hurdles are government regulations - not on the nuclear end of things but starter chemicals. I decided at that point that unlike Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusion home research projects - my Impacting Molecular Cage Fusion approach will require corporate overhead or risk instant doom. You have to be a corporate player or you simply can't get what you need - and not just any corporate player - one specifically prepared and ready to handle the documentation and can prove it. I thought that the trivial amounts of chemicals I would need wouldn't be a problem. Turns out some are some are not a problem and that the regulations change faster than diapers so there is no predictability in what you can or cannot work on. After a few more FORTRAN programs for pure physics research I might go back and at least work on the theory some more. With no money out there for anything it isn't likely anyone else is going to be working this problem but me any time soon. If the work does get done the more likely approach is to use it for other research prior to fusion work. Like a lot of things no one will pay any attention unless it already works.

Dennis




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users




Nightingale-Conant